LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

m^np- eopJ|rtgI/t fn 

SheJf rP ij 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 





7d^ 
THE CHURCH. 



By ENOCH POND, D. D. 

PROFESSOR Ili THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, BANGOR. 



BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED BY WHIPPLE & DAMRELL, 

No. 9 Comhill. 
NEW YORK t-SCOFIELD AND VOORHIESf 

No. 118 Nassau Street. 

1837. 





^«RBB^^ 



J I 



A'S-I* 



w 



THE CHURCH. 



By ENOCH POND, D. D. 

PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, BANGOR. 



T 




BOSTON : 
PUBLISHED BY WHIPPLE & DAMRELL, 

No. 9 Cornhill. 
NEW YORK:— SCOFIELD & VOORHIES, 

No. 118 Nassau Street. 



1837 






.W , 



% 



^U^^\ 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1837, by 

WHIPPLE AND DAMRELL, 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



J/f^ 






WILLIAM S. DAMKELL, PRr^TF.R, 

■ No. 9 Cornhill, Boston. 



I 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The author of the following pages is^ 
not only by profession, but in principle^ 
a Congregationalist. He believes that 
the popular form of church government, 
adopted (with some modifications) by 
the Congregational and Baptist church- 
es of the United States and of Eng- 
land, is more nearly in accordance with 
apostolical usage, and better adapted to 
secure the great ends of church organ- 
ization, than any other with which he 
is acquainted. Of course, he feels an 
interest in the explanation and vindica- 
tion of this general form. 



IV ADVERTISEMENT. 



In common with many of his breth- 
ren, with whom he has had opportunity 
of correspondence, the writer has felt 
that a small treatise on the general sub- 
ject of the Church, designed not exclu- 
sively for the learned, but rather for 
the instruction of the common mind, 
was much needed at the present time. 
This need it has been his object in some 
measure to supply. How far he has 
succeeded in this attempt, the public 
will decide. 



CONTENTS 



^ Page. 

bECTioN I. Signification of the word Church, in 
the New Testament, 9 

Section II. Has Christ instituted any precise form 
of Church government? 10 

Section III. Scriptural authority for Congrega- 
tional Churches, . . . . , ^ I3 

Section IV. The apostolic Churches voluntary 
Associations. In what respects Churches differ 
from other voluntary Associations, 18 

Section V. The Question of written Creeds and 
Covenants, 23 

Section VI. Independence and mutual Fellow- 
ship of Churches, 27 

1^ 



VI 



CONTENTS 



Page. 



Section VII. Powers and Rights of a Church. 
Right to elect its own officers, admit and exclude 
members, hold and control property, &c., 34 

Section VIII. Officers of a Church. Two dis- 
tinct orders of standing church officers, presbyters 
and deacons. Arguments of Episcopalians exam- 
ined. Ordination, 39 

Section IX. Church Discipline, 78 

Section. X. Privileges of Church Members,. ... 86 

Section XI. Concluding Remarks. The Church 
an honorable and important institution. Duty of 
all persons under the Gospel to become connected 
with it, 89 



APPENDIX 



Note A. Deaconesses, 103 

Note B. Ancient Creeds. The Apostle's Creed. 
Creed of Irenaeus. Creed of Origen. Creed of 
Tertullian. Creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
Creed of Lucian the martyr. Creed of the Church 
at Jerusalem. Creed of the Church at Alexandria. 
Creed of the Church at Antioch, . 105 



CONTENTS. Vll 

Page. 
Note C. Should the articles of a Church contain 

any thing more than what is absolutely essential to 

piety ? 113 

Note D. Different modes of communion or fellow- 
ship among the ancient churches, 117 

Note E. Date of Paul's first Epistle to Timothy. 
Written before his last interview with the Ephesian 
elders, 119 

Note F. The question of an apostolic succession 
of bishops considered, 121 

Note G. The Epistles of Ignatius probably spu- 
rious, 126 



THE CHURCH. 



SECTION I. 

Signification of the vjord Churchy in the J^ew Testament. 

The Greek word commonly rendered 
church, in the New Testament, literally sig- 
nifies a congregation, an assembly. Thus the 
congregation of Israel in the wilderness is 
called a church. Acts 7: 38; and to the 
riotous assembly at Ephesus the same orig- 
inal word is applied, Acts 19: 32, 39. With 
reference to Christians, we find the term used 
in the three following senses: 

1. To denote the general invisible church, 
comprising the whole body of true believers, 
whether on earth or in heaven. Heb. 12: 23. 
Col. 1: 18, 24. 



10 THE CHURCH. 

2. To denote particular visible churches, or 
those bodies of professed believers, which were 
accustomed to assemble for divine worship 
and other religious purposes in one place; as 
the church at Jerusalem, the church at Anti- 
och, the churches of Galatia, and of Macedo- 
nia. This is the more literal, and much the 
more common use of the word in the New 
Testament. 

3. The word is also used, though not fre- 
quently, to denote the general visible church, 
considered as embodying all the particular 
visible churches. Rom. 16:23. 1 Cor. 12:28. 



SECTION II. 

Has Christ instituted any precise form of church gov- 
ernment ? 

It has been made a question, whether there 
is any precise model of church organization 
and government laid down in the New Testa- 
ment, to which Christians universally are 
under obligations to conform. By some it has 
been contended, that this is the case; — that 
nothing is left to the discretion of the church; 
— that we are bound to copy, in every partic- 



THECHURCH. II 

ular, after the divine pattern which has been 
given us. By others it is asserted, that we 
have no divine pattern which is at all obliga- 
tory; — that Christians are left to their own 
judgment in this matter; — that it is not only 
their right, but their duty, to modify the gov- 
ernment of the church according to the cir- 
cumstances of the age and country in which 
they live. 

The truth, I think, lies between these two 
extremes. The Scriptures do furnish us with 
at least some general outlines of church organ- 
ization and government, from which no body 
of Christians is at liberty to depart. They 
describe, for example, the object of church 
organization, and the character of church 
members; and no Christians would be at 
liberty to form a society for a merely moral 
or secular object, and without any regard to 
the character of its members, and to call it a 
church of Christ. Nor has any body of 
Christians, calling themselves a church, a 
right to dispense with religious worship and 
divine ordinances, or with the ministry and 
officers of a church. Nor, in place of a stated 
pastor, would the members of a church have 
a right to assume the pastoral office in rotation, 



12 THE CHURCH. 

one after another, for a limited time. Nor, in 
place of deacons, would they have a right to 
substitute a church committee, chosen annu- 
ally, or for a shorter period. The practice of 
nearly all Christians shows, that they con- 
ceive some things in regard to church order to 
be settled in the New Testament; and so 
settled, that they are not at liberty to depart 
from them. 

On the other hand, it would be idle to pre- 
tend, that every thing relating to church af- 
fairs, is authoritatively settled in the New 
Testament, so that nothing is left to the 
judgment of Christians. For example, the 
Scriptures prescribe that ministers of the 
gospel are to be supported; but they do not 
fix the precise amount of their salaries, or 
define the mode in which their salaries are 
to be raised. The Scriptures enjoin the duty 
of public worship; but they do not direct 
Christians where they shall meet, or at what 
hour of the day, or in what shape or form 
they shall build their temples. We shall 
search in vain for any inspired precept, re- 
quiring or forbidding church organs, or church 
bells, or defining particularly the length, or 
the precise order, of the services of the sane- 



THECHURCH. 13 

tuary. We have a general injunction, that 
''all things be done decently and in order ;^^ 
but in what particular order many things are 
to be done, is wisely left to the judgment of 
Christians. 

The truth in regard to the question before 
us seems, therefore, to be this: there are some 
general outlines of church organization and 
government marked out for us by the pen of 
inspiration; and these, so far as they can be 
discovered, are to be strictly regarded. But 
within the range of these, God has wisely left 
many things to be judged of by the light of 
reason, and to be modified according to cir- 
cumstances in providence. 



SECTION III. 

Scriptural authority for Congregational Churches, 

It is evident from the sacred writings, that 
Christ intended to embody his professed fol- 
lowers on earth, not in one corporate, univer- 
sal church, but in 'particular, Congregational 
churches.^ He prepared the materials for 

* I use the word Congregational here in a general, and 
not in a technical or sectarian sense. 

2 



14 THECHURCH. 

such a church during his public ministry, 
which church was fully organized at Jerusa- 
lem soon after his ascension. Acts 1 : 26, 
and 6: 5, 6, 

It was a principal labor of the apostles to 
form such churches in the cities and villages 
where they preached, and where disciples 
were multiplied. Nearly thirty different 
churches are spoken of specifically in the New 
Testament, besides a much greater number 
which are referred to in more general terms. 

That these churches were not of a national 
or provincial character appears from the fact, 
that when the churches of a particular country 
or province are mentioned, they are always 
spoken of in the plural number. Thus we 
read of, not the church, but the churches of 
Judea, of Syria, of Galatia, of Asia, and of 
Macedonia. See Acts 9: 31. 15: 41. 1 Cor. 
16: 1, 19. 2 Cor. 8:1. And when there were 
converts in a place adjoining a large city, it 
was not the custom of the apostles to gather 
them into the church of the city, but to form 
them into a separate church. Thus at Cen- 
chrea, the port of Corinth, there was a church, 
distinct from the larger church in the city. 
See Rom. 16: 1. 



THECHURCH. 15 

These particular churches were distinct 
organizations, each having its own members 
and officers. To be a member of one church 
did not constitute membership in another; nor 
did the holding of office in one church consti- 
tute the person holding it an officer of any 
other church. Thus, the teachers spoken of 
in the church at Antioch were not teachers or 
members of the church at Ephesus; nor were 
the elders of the church at Ephesus officers 
of the church at Rome. Acts 13: 1. 20: 17. 
Epaphroditus was a member and officer of the 
church at Philippi; and Phebe was servant (or 
deaconess) of the church at Cenchrea.^ Phil. 
2: 25. Rom. 16: 1. 

The churches under the apostles were com- 
posed, each of them, of Christians, who were 
expected to come together in one place for 
public worship, and for cel€brating the ordi- 
nances of the gospel. Perhaps all of them did 
not assemble uniformly in one place. The 
distresses of the times, and their want of suit- 
able accommodations, might have prevented 
this. But that, on all occasions of common 
interest and concernment, the members of a 

* See Appendix, Note A. 



16 THE CHURCH. 

church, and even of the largest churches, 
were accustomed to come together, is certain. 
On the day of Pentecost, the church at Jeru- 
salem were assembled ''with one accord, in 
one place. ^^ And many years after, when 
messengers from the church at Antioch went 
up to Jerusalem, with the question respecting 
circumcision, the apostles, and elders, and the 
ivhole church came together to deliberate and 
advise in relation to this matter. Acts. 2:1. 
15: 22. When Paul and Barnabas returned 
from their first mission to the heathen, ''they 
gathered the church at Antioch together, and 
rehearsed all that God had done with them, 
and how he had opened the door of faith unto 
the Gentiles." Acts 14: 27. "Upon the 
first day of the week," the church at Troas 
''came together to break bread." Acts 20: 7. 
It is repeatedly said of the church at Cor- 
inth, that they were accustomed to "come 
together into one place,^^ to attend upon divine 
worship, and to administer the discipline of 
the church. See 1 Cor. 5: 4, 11: 18. 14: 
23.^ Indeed, if the administration of disci- 

* "If therefore the whole church be come together into 
one place,^^ &c. 



THECHURCH. 17 

pline belongs to the church, as by the express 
appointment of Christ it manifestly does (see 
Matt. 18: 17), then the church must of neces- 
sity come together, to transact this painful but 
important work. 

It is thus indisputably certain from our 
sacred writings, that Christians, under the 
ministry of the apostles, were collected into 
distinct and separate organizations, called 
churches, each having its own members and 
officers, and each consisting of such as were 
accustomed to assemble in one place for relig- 
ious worship, and for transacting the affairs 
of the church. 

I will only add, that if the plan of the apos- 
tles, in this respect, had been followed out in 
the succeeding ages; if, when Christians in 
the large cities and their suburbs became too 
numerous to assemble conveniently in one 
place, instead of attempting to continue to- 
gether, they had amicably separated into dis- 
tinct organizations; one of the stepping-stones 
to Romanism would have been removed, and 
a principal source of ambition and corruption 
would have been kept out of the church. In 
this case, the sees of Rome, and Antioch, and 
Alexiindria, and Constantinople, would never 

\ 
f 



I 



18 THECHURCH. 

have been converted into princely thrones, 
and aspirants would not have waded into them 
through scenes of turmoil and blood. 



SECTION IV. 

The apostolic Churches voluntary associations. 

The churches, in the days of the apostles, 
were all of them ijo/i^n^ari/ associations. The 
apostles had no compulsory power to bring 
men into the churches, nor did they desire 
any. All who joined themselves to any of the 
churches did it freely, and of their own accord. 
The three thousand, who were baptized on 
the day of Pentecost, acted freely. So did 
the Ethiopian eunuch, and Saul of Tarsus, 
^nd the Philippian jailer, and the family of 
Cornelius, and every other individual who, at 
that period, was added to a Christian church. 
There was no compulsion, or any thing ap- 
proaching to it, in any case. The churches 
then were, and ever should have been, strictly 
voluntary associations. 

But although every church of Christ is, and of 
right ought to be, a voluntary association, still, 
every voluntary association is not a church. 



THECHURCH. 19 

It is necessary to inquire, therefore, what 
there was peculiar in the associations of which 
we speak, which went to constitute them 
churches of Christ. And, 

1. These associations consisted of persons 
of a particular character. All who joined 
themselves unto the churches of the apostles 
were required to profess faith in Christ, and 
to give credible evidence of piety. It was 
those ''who were pricked in the heart," and 
repented, and ''gladly received the word," 
who were admitted to the church on the day 
of Pentecost. It was not till the Samaritans 
" believed Philip, preaching the things con- 
cerning the kingdom of Christ," that they 
were received by him to baptism and the 
church. The Holy Ghost fell on the family 
of Cornelius, and satisfied Peter as to their 
piety, before he would admit them to the 
church, and administer to them the ordinances 
of the gospel. Ananias objected to baptizing 
Saul of Tarsus, till a voice from heaven as- 
sured him of the piety of this recent perse- 
cutor. "He is a chosen vessel unto me, to 
bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, 
and the children of Israel." Acts 9: 15. 

We here see what were the terms of admis- 



20 THE CHURCH. 

sion to the apostolic churches, and what ought 
to be the terms of admission to all the visible 
churches of Christ. A visible church is that 
which is visibly, or which appears to be, a 
branch of the real church. Consequently a 
member of the visible church should be one 
who is visibly, or who appears to be, a real dis- 
ciple and follower of the Saviour. To say that 
a person can be a consistent member of the vis- 
ible church, and not appear to be a member of 
the real church, is a contradiction in terms. 

Besides; none but a truly sanctified person 
can consistently perform those sacramental acts, 
which are required of all the members of a 
church. Do not those who go to the table of 
Christ, and feed upon the symbol of his broken 
body, herein plainly manifest that they are pre- 
pared to feed upon him by faith? Do not those 
who bring the consecrated cup to their lips, 
and partake the emblem of a Saviour's blood, 
herein significantly say, that their trust is in 
this precious blood? Do not those who sit at 
the table of Christ, in visible communion with 
his people, manifest, in this transaction, that 
they have, or that they trust they have, holy, 
spiritual communion with the saints? In other 
words, is not the whole transaction of com- 



i 



THE CHURCH. 21 

municating, a symbolical profession of faith and 
holiness, such as no one can consistently make, 
unless he is a holy person? To me, I must ac- 
knowledge, this matter is altogether too plain 
to be made the subject of dispute or doubt. 
It ought never to have been called in question 
in the church of Christ. No person can come 
to the Lord's table without making a virtual 
profession of piety; and no person should be 
encouraged or permitted to join himself to a 
church of Christ, and enter into obligations 
to come to his table, without furnishing satis- 
factory evidence, that he is prepared to come 
in a holy, acceptable manner. 

2. Those voluntary associations, formed by 
the apostles, and by them denominated church- 
es, not only consisted, as we have seen, of 
persons of a, particular character, but they were 
formed on a peculiar basis, viz., that of the holy 
Scriptures. In establishing other voluntary 
associations, the members are guided by the 
particular object which they have in view; and 
they so form and adjust their constitution and 
laws as will best tend to promote this object. 
But in establishing churches, all who would 
follow in the steps of the apostles, must build 
entirely on the platform of the Scriptures. 



22 THECHURCH. 

Their constitution and by-laws must conform 
to the Scriptures. All who become connect- 
ed with a church must be required to take the 
Scriptures as their rule. They must profess 
to believe whatever the Scriptures plainly 
teach, and promise to obey, so far as they are 
able, all that the Scriptures enjoin. Here 
then, is a very important particular in which 
the churches of Christ differ from all other 
voluntary associations. 

3. The object for which churches are formed 
and sustained is altogether of a peculiar char- 
acter. The object for which professed believ- 
ers become associated in a church is to pro- 
mote, not any merely moral or secular end, 
but altogether a spiritual end. Their object 
is, to maintain the worship and ordinances of 
the gospel ; to promote, by all proper methods, 
the edification one of another; and to labor, 
more efficiently than would otherwise be pos- 
sible, for the advancement of Christ's kingdom 
and the salvation of souls. Such is in brief, 
the object of all church organization. A wor- 
thy and important object truly !^ An object 

*It is evident from the object of church organization, 
that churches should be particular or congregational; in 
other words, that each should consist of those only who 
can statedly and conveniently come together in one place. 



i 



THE CHURCH. 23 

in reference to which the church is gloriously 
distinguished from all other associations exist- 
ing among men. 

The remarks in this section may be summed 
up in a definition, from which it will be seen, 
at a glance, in what respects churches differ 
from other voluntary societies. A church is 
an organized body of professed believers in 

Christ; formed on the basis of the holy Scrip- 
tures; and having for its object the maintenance 
of the worship and ordinances of the gospel, the 
edification of its members, and their more efficient 
action in promoting the cause and kingdom of 

Christ. 



SECTION V. 

The question of written Creeds and Covenants. 

That those who associate together in a 
church must have some compact or covenant, 
written or unwritten, expressed or implied, is 
obvious. Otherwise, there would be no mutu- 
al agreement or understanding between them. 
They would have no bond of union, and would 
not know at all what duties to expect, or what 
were expected, one of another. And if there 



24 THE CHURCH. 

must be a compact or covenant, it certainly 
would seem desirable that this should be a 
written covenant; one that could not well be 
forgotten, and to which all the members might 
have liberty of appeal. 

From the nature of the case it is certain, 
that the churches, in the days of the apostles, 
must have had, each of them, its covenant. 
In other words, there must have been a mu- 
tual understanding, an agreement, between 
the members, as to what course of life they 
were to pursue, and the duties they were to 
perform one towards another. We are told 
that they gave themselves up first unto the 
Lord, and to one another by the will of God. 
2 Cor. 8: 5. Whether the covenants of the 
churches were committed to writing, at so 
early a period, we have no certain means of 
information. 

In the age immediately succeeding that of 
the apostles, we find frequent mention made 
of the covenants of the churches. Tertullian, 
describing a church, says, ''We are a body 
united for the conscientious performance of 
the duties of religion, by an agreement in dis- 
cipline, and a covenant of hope.'' Justin Mar- 
tyr represents those who were admitted into 



THE CHURCH. 25 

church fellowship, as agreeing in a resolution 
to conform in all things to the word of God." 
Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, says, that the 
Christians whom he had examined, confessed 
nothing worse than this, that '' they had enter- 
ed into a covenant to commit no theft, robbery, 
or adultery, to break no promise, to violate no 
engagement, and to do no dishonest thing." 

The same course of remark which has been 
pursued in relation to church covenants, may 
be extended also to creeds. It is certainly 
desirable, that those who are to unite habitu- 
ally in the most solemn acts of worship, should 
be agreed in the essential articles of their 
faith; and as every Christian who believes 
any thing, has a creed, so every society of 
Christians, which holds any articles of faith 
in common, has a common creed. The only 
question is (if this can be a question), whether 
the creed shall be matter of public record, to 
which all concerned may have free access, and 
liberty of appeal, or whether it shall be left 
to uncertain tradition and forgetfulness. 

That the churches, in the days of the apos- 
tles, had each of them its creed, or common 
articles of belief, relating to the birth and life, 
the teachings and actions, the death, resur- 
3 



26 THECHURCH. 

rection, and ascension of Jesus — the duties 
which Christians owed to him, and the hopes 
which they entertained through him, is certain. 
Whether these creeds were formally written 
out by any of the apostles, cannot now be as- 
certained. We know that there were written 
creeds in the churches, at a very early period. 
The apostle's creed (so called) is an ancient 
document; though not written certainly — at 
least not all of it — by any of the apostles.^ 

A written creed should never be substituted 
in place of Scripture, but should be regarded 
as a concise ex'pression of what is deemed to be 
the sense of Scripture. To the church adopting 
it, it is not itself the standard of faith, but a 
transcript, an epitome of that infallible stand- 
ard which God has given us in his word. 

No church has a right to impose its creed 
upon others, but merely to propose it for con- 
sideration, leaving those to whom is is pro- 
posed at full liberty, either to adopt it, and 
walk with that particular church, or to reject 
it, and enter into some other connexion. 

With the explanation above given, I see no 
valid objection to written creeds and cove- 
nants, while the benefits of them are so nu- 

* See Appendix, Note B. 



THE CHURCH. 2T 

merous and obvious, as to entitle them to an 
universal adoption.^ 



SECTION VI. 

Independence and mutual Fellowship of Churches. 

While the churches planted by the apostles 
maintained a fraternal intercourse one with 
another, in all holy fellowship and communion, 
they manifestly were independent one of 
another, so far as jurisdiction and authority 
were concerned. The apostles, indeed, as the 
divinely commissioned and inspired founders 
of churches, had a degree of authority over 
them, which was peculiar to themselves; but 
among the churches, we find no one of them, 
and no confederated body of them, presuming 
to exercise authority over the others. Not 
even the mother church at Jerusalem, consid- 
ered in its church capacity, and as separate 
from the apostles, ever undertook to dictate 
to the other churches, or to extend its juris- 
diction over them. 

The independence of the primitive church- 

* Appendix, Note C. 



28 THE CHURCH. 

es, in the sense and to the extent here ex- 
plained, is not only sanctioned by the Scrip- 
tures, but most explicitly asserted by learned 
and impartial historians, who have investiga- 
ted the subject. Waddington, an Episcopa- 
lian of the church of England, speaking of 
the church in the first century, says, ''Every 
church was essentially independent of every 
other. The churches, thus constituted and 
regulated, formed a sort of federative body of 
independent religious communities, dispersed 
through the greater part of the Roman em- 
pire, in continual communication, and in con- 
stant harmony with each other." ^ 

Mosheim, a Lutheran, who could have had 
no predilection for the doctrine of Indepen- 
dency, thus describes the state of things in 
the first century: ''All the churches, in those 
primitive times, were independent bodies; or 
none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any 
other. For though the churches which were 
founded by the apostles themselves frequently 
had the honor shown them to be consulted in 
difficult cases, yet they had no judicial author- 
ity, no control, no power of giving laws. On 

* Ecc. Hist., p. 43. 



THE CHURCH. 29 

the contrary, it is clear as the noonday, that all 
Christian churches had equal rights, and were 
in all respects on a footing of equality, ^^ The 
same author, speaking of the second century, 
says, '^During a great part of this century, 
all the churches continued to be, as at first, 
independent of each other, or were connected 
by no consociations or confederations. Each 
church was a kind of little independent repub- 
lic, governed by its own laws, which were 
enacted, or at least sanctioned, by the peo- 
ple."^ 

The testimony of Neander on the subject 
before us, is entirely accordant with that of 
Mosheim. He enlarges upon the free and 
popular form of government adopted by the 
churches in the first century, and describes 
them as sustaining, in relation to each other, 
''a sisterly system of equality.'' 

But while the primitive churches were, in 
the sense explained, independent of each 
other, they were bound together by the strong- 
est ties, and maintained (as hinted above) a 
constant intercourse, in all suitable acts of 
fellowship and communion. They were to 

* Ecc. Hist. (Murdock's edition), vol. i, pp. 86, 142. 

3* 



30 THECHURCH. 

each other objects of deep interest, and of 
mutual concern and prayer. As their teach- 
ers journeyed from place to place, it is not to 
be doubted that they had an interchange of 
pastoral labors. The members, too, when 
absent from their own churches, were freely 
admitted to communion in the assemblies of 
their brethren. The primitive churches sent 
Christian salutations and letters of instruction 
and warning one to another. They also sent 
messengers one to another, and administered 
relief to one another in distress. They cheer- 
fully bore one another's burdens, and in cases 
of doubt and difficulty, looked to each other 
for advice. 

This fellowship of churches, established by 
the apostles, was continued under the ministry 
of their immediate successors. Before the 
close of the first century, Clement of Rome 
addressed an epistle to the Corinthian church, 
which commences as follows: ''The church 
of God which is at Rome, to the church of 
God which is at Corinth, elect, sanctified by 
the will of God, through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." Various instances occur, in the age 
immediately succeeding that of the apostles, 
in which one church, or the pastor of some 



THECHURCH. 31 

one church, addresses letters of exhortation 
to other churches. "^ 

This intimate and holy fellowsliip of church- 
es is no more inconsistent with their indepen- 
dence, than the friendly intercourse of neigh- 
bors is inconsistent with their being, each 
and all of them, independent citizens. I have 
no right, as an individual, to exercise author- 
ity over my neighbor, nor he over me. Still, 
it is proper that we should maintain a mutual 
friendly intercourse, and perform towards 
each other all the offices of neighborhood and 
kindness. 

The independence of churches, in the sense 
here explained, I hold to be one of those pe- 
culiar, apostolical features of church govern- 
ment, which ought never to have been invaded 
or relinquished. It began to be invaded, 
about the middle of the second century, by 
the establishment of synods with dictatorial 
poivers ;'\ and it continued to be invaded more 

* Appendix, Note D. 

t ** These synods or councils," says Mosheim, "of 
which we find not the smallest trace before the middle of 
the second century, changed the whole face of the church, 
and gave it a new form; for by them the ancient privileges 
of the people were diminished, and the power and author- 



32 THE CHURCH. 

and more, till at length it utterly disappeared 
from the church. And when this was gone, 
there was no let or hindrance to the progress 
of usurpation, until all the churches became 
merged in one universal church; and all 
power was concentrated in the lordly bishop 
of Rome. 

The independence of particular churches, 
modified by established forms of ecclesiastical 
intercourse and fellowship, constitutes the pe- 
culiar characteristic, and (as I think) the 
gloi^y of Congregationalism.^ In the govern- 
ment of many denominations of Christians, 
this independence is taken away. The par- 
ticular churches are all merged in a general 
church, and are subject to a jurisdiction above 

ity of the bishops greatly augmented." There could 
have been no danger in these synods, and might have been 
much benefit, if they had confined themselves to delibera- 
tion and counsel; but they soon "turned then* influence 
into dominion, and their counsels into laws, and openly 
asserted that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to 
his people authoritative rules of faith and manners.''' — 
JScc. Hist., Cent, ii. Part ii, Chap. 2. 

* I use the term Congregationalism here, as in other 
places, in its widest sense, including under it all those 
sects of Christians who retain the principle of independen- 
cy, and whose government is of the popular kind. 



THE CHURCH. 33 

and without themselves. But not so in the 
Congregational churches. All power here 
originates (under Christ) in the church, and 
terminates in the church. The stream never 
rises higher than the fountain. There may be 
church conferences or consociations, and 
ministerial associations for mutual encourage- 
ment, edification and prayer; but these can 
exercise no jurisdiction, control, or authority 
over the churches. Councils may be called, 
and may give advice ; but this advice may be 
accepted or rejected. To be sure, where the 
advice of a council is unreasonably rejected, 
I there may follow a breaqh of fellowship be- 
1 tween the churches giving it, and the church 
rejecting it. Still, each and every church re- 
I tains its independence, so far as jurisdiction 
i is concerned, being amenable only to its di- 
vine Shepherd and Head. 
11 To some, this system of government has 
[j appeared loose and defective; but I have no 
doubt that it is, for substance, the same, which 
was bequeathed to the churches by the divine 
Saviour and his apostles. And neither can I 
doubt, that experience has shown it to be bet- 
ter adapted to the great ends and purposes of 
I church organization, than any of the numer- 



34 THECHURCH. 

ous forms which have been substituted in its 
place. Where shall we look for churches 
more efficient and flourishing, than those of 
the first century and a half of the Christian 
era? And where, since that period, shall we 
look for churches more efficient and flourish- 
ing, than those of the Congregationalists and 
Baptists of England and America? To be 
sure, there have been occasional breaches of 
fellowship; but these have resulted rather 
from misapprehension, or a want of brotherly 
love, than from any inherent defect of ecclesi- 
astical organization. Of course, the proper 
remedy for them is to be sought in a better 
understanding of our peculiar principles, and 
in an increase of the spirit of love, and not in 
a departure from that form of church govern- 
ment which we believe to have been sanc- 
tioned by Christ and his apostles. 



SECTION VII. 

Powers and Rights of a Church. 

1. Every church has a right to elect its own 
officers. This is a natural, inherent right of 
all voluntary associations. Who would call 



THE CHURCH. 35 

in question the right of any other voluntary 
society to organize itself, by the election of 
such officers as its constitution required? 
And who can, with any reason, deny this right 
to churches, unless indeed it be expressly 
denied to them by the Saviour? 

But this right, so far from being denied to 
the churches by Christ and his apostles, is, as 
we think, expressly granted to them. The 
churches were accustomed to elect their offi- 
cers in the presence and under the eye of the 
apostles themselves. When an individual 
was to be appointed to fill the place of Judas, 
the disciples chose two from among their num- 
ber, one of whom was designated by lot to be 
numbered with the apostles. Acts 1 : 23. 
When deacons were to be appointed in the 
church at Jerusalem, these were first chosen 
by the church, and afterwards ordained by the 
apostles. Acts 6: 5. The churches of Mac- 
edonia chose delegates to travel with Paul and 
his company, and carry their contributions to 
the poor. 2 Cor. 8: 19.=^ 

* Clement, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, the 
earliest and best authenticated fragment of Christian an- 
tiquity, affirms, that the apostles set apart approved persons 
unto the office of the ministry, *' with the consent of the 
whole church.'''' 



36 THE CHURCH. 

This right of choosing its own officers con- 
tinued to be exercised in the church long 
after the age of the apostles. During the first 
century, says Waddington, '*onthe death of 
a president, or bishop, or pastor, the choice of 
a successor devolved on the members of the soci- 
ety. In this election, the people had an equal 
share; and it is clear that their right in this 
matter was not barely testimonial, hut judicial 
and elective. This appointment was final, re- 
quiring no confirmation from any civil power, 
or any superior prelate." =^ Mosheim, in his 
history of the second century, says, *'The 
form of church government, which began to 
exist in the preceding century, was in this 
more industriously established and confirmed 
in all its parts. One president or bishop pre- 
sided over each church, who was created by the 
common suffrage of the whole people,'^^ Vol. i, 
p. 142. 

Origen, near the close of his last book 
against Celsus, represents elders as ^^ chosen io 
their office," by the churches which they 
rule. Cyprian insists largely on the right of 

* Ecc. Hist., p. 43. Neander testifies to the same fact. 
So also does Bingham, in his Antiquities of the Christian 
Church, Book iv, chap. 2. 



THECHURCH. 37 

churches to choose their own officers, affirm- 
ing that this was the practice, not only of the 
African churches, but of those in most of the 
other provinces of the Roman empire. Epis. 
68. Socrates, speaking of the election of 
Chrysostom, says, ''he was chosen by the 
common vote of all, both clergy and people."^ 
Theodoret describes the election of Eustatius 
in the same manner, when he says, ''he was 
compelled to take the bishopric, by the com- 
mon vote of the bishops and clergy and all the 
people." I 

2. Another obvious right of the churches is 
that of admitting and excluding members. The 
right of admitting members belongs to church- 
es, in common with all other voluntary asso- 
ciations. Also the right of censuring and ex- 
cluding unworthy members is clearly a natural 
right of the churches, and as such is expressly 
recognised in the New Testament. When a 
member of this character is not reclaimed by 
private remonstrance, our Saviour directs that 
his case be brought before the church: and if 
he hear not the church, he is by them to be 
excommunicated. Matt. 18: 17. "When," 

* Ecc. Hist., Lib. vi, Cap. 2. f Ibid., Lib. i, Cap. 7. 
4 



38 THECHURCH. 

says Neander, '^a vicious person is to be ex- 
cluded from the church at Corinth, the apostle 
regards it as something which must proceed 
from the whole church." 1 Cor. 5: 4. And 
when this same person, being humbled, is to 
be forgiven and restored, his restoration is to 
be effected by the same body. 2 Cor. 2: 7. 

3. Still another right of the churches is that 
of holding and co7itrolling their own 'property. 
The apostle, speaking of widows, says, ''If 
any who believe have widows, let them relieve 
them, and let not the church he charged;^' a 
form of expression which implies that the 
church at that period had funds, which it dis- 
posed of at discretion. 1 Tim. 6: 16. The 
church at Jerusalem was early in possession 
of property to a very considerable amount. 
For a time, at least, it seems to have held the 
property of all its members. For ''as many 
of them as were possessors of lands or houses 
sold them, and brought the prices of the things 
that were sold, and laid them down at the 
apostles' feet." Acts 4: 34. It was to take 
charge of the property of the church, and see 
to its equitable distribution, that the order of 
deacons was first instituted. Acts 6: 3.^ 

* By the laws of Massachusetts and Maine, and perhaps 



THE CHURCH. 39 

In short, every church may be said to have 
a right to dispose of its own proper internal 
concerns, subject only to such restrictions and 
regulations as have been imposed by Christ 
himself. It has a right to do all that is neces- 
sary to be done, in order to preserve its own 
existence, and to secure to itself the privileges 
and blessings of the gospel. 



SECTION VIII. 

Officers of a Church. 

It is matter of general acknowledgment, 
that there are two distinct orders of officers in 
the church of Christ, viz. those of pastors and 
deacons.^ Episcopalians divide the order of 

of some other of the States, "the deacons of the several 
Protestant churches (not Episcopal) are incorporated, to 
take in succession all grants and donations, whether real 
or personal, made either to their several churches, the poor 
of their churches, or to them and their successors, and to 
sue and defend in all actions touching the same." 

* There are differences in degree among church officers, 
which do not amount to a difference of order. Thus, in 
the general order of presbyters, among ourselves, there are 
pastors, missionaries, theological professors, and evange- 



40 " T H E C H U R C H . 

pastors into those of bishops and presbyters, 
thus making three distinct orders, instead of 
two. They insist that Christ has instituted 
three orders of ministers in his church, of which 
bishops are the first; and that it belongs to 
bishops, each in his own diocese, to consecrate 
churches, to confirm and exclude members, 
to ordain ministers, and in general to admin- 
ister the government of the church. This 
theory, in order to be admitted, must be es- 
tablished by proof; the burden of which lies, 
obviously, on the hands of its abettors. If 
they can support it by sound and sufficient 
arguments, then let it be universally received. 
If not, it may well be regarded in the light of 
mere theory. It is proposed now to examine 
the principal arguments by which the above 
theory has been attempted to be supported. 
And, 

1. Some of its advocates derive an analogy 
in its favor from the doctrine of the trinity. 

lists. So in the times of the apostles, there were differ- 
ences in degree among the teaching officers of the church, 
and these were designated by different names, as apostles, 
prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers; while all may have 
been classed under the same general order. 1 Cor. 12: 
28. Eph. 4: 11. 



THECHURCH. 41 

This has recently been done by Bishop Hop- 
kins of Vermont.^ This analogy however, if 
there be any, is too remote to be apprehended 
by common minds. Because there are three 
persons in the Godhead, it is not quite certain 
that there are, or should be, three orders of 
ministers in the church of Christ. And be- 
sides, if this argument were admitted, it would 
I militate directly against the views of those 
who advance it. The three persons in the 
Godhead are equal. Do Episcopalians allow 
that the supposed three orders of ministers 
are equal? 

2. Another argument for the three orders 
of ministers is drawn from the analogy of the 
Jewish priesthood. As among the Jews, there 
were the high-priest, the priests, and Levites, 
so among Christians, there should be bishops, 
presbyters, and deacons. But the priesthood in 
Israel was not designed to prefigure the gospel 
ministry, but rather the priesthood of the Son 
of God. The high-priest in Israel was a type 
of the great "High-Priest of our profession;" 
and the sacrifices which were offered by the 
Jewish priesthood all looked forward to the 

* Primitive Church, &c., p. 235. 

4#. 



42 THECHURCH. 

great atoning sacrifice which was offered on 
the cross. There is properly no priest under 
the gospel dispensation, except the Lord Jesus 
Christ. '' Not with the blood of goats and 
calves, but with his own blood, hath he en- 
tered once into the holy place, having obtain- 
ed eternal redemption for us." To call a 
gospel minister a priest is a palpable perver- 
sion and abuse of the term.* 

The Romanists, who hold to the doctrine of 
transubstantiation, and believe that in every 
mass, or celebration of the eucharist, there 
is offered a literal sacrifice, may consistently 
denominate their ministers priests. But in 
the mouth of a Protestant, the term, as ap- 
plied to gospel ministers, is strange and un- 
meaning. Hence, no analogy can be drawn 
from the priesthood in Israel, by which to de- 
termine the different orders of ministers in the 
kingdom of Christ.! 

* Gospel ministers are never called priests in the New 
Testament, except as they are included in the general 
company of believers, who are mystically denominated 
** kings and priests unto God." Rev. 1 : 6. 

t The ministry of the church of Christ was derived, not 
from the temple, but the synagogue. According to Dean 
Prideaux, "the first officers in the synagogue were the 



THECHURCH. 43 

And if this analogy were admissible, it 
would prove too much for those Protestants 
who rely upon it. It would prove the neces- 
sity, not of a bench of bishops, but of sl prince 
of bishops, a Pope, who should be as highly 
exalted above his brethren, as the high-priest 
in Israel was above the chief priests, or per- 
haps the ordinary priests. 

3. It has been said that bishops, as distinct 
from presbyters, are expressly spoken of in the 
JVeiv Testament. That bishops are repeatedly 
and expressly spoken of in the New Testa- 
ment is certain; but it is also certain, from a 
comparison of passages, that the terms bishop 
and presbyter are there used interchangeably, 
as referring not only to the same office, but 
often to the same persons. Paul, writing to 

elders, who governed all the affairs of it, and directed all 
the duties of religion therein to be performed. These are 
in the New Testament called the rulers of the synagogue,''' 
Under these *' were the deacons, or inferior ministers of 
the synagogue, who kept the sacred books, and all other 
utensils belonging to the synagogue, and brought them 
forth, whenever they were to be used in the public ser- 
vice. Thus it is said of our Saviour, when he was called 
upon to read in the synagogue of Nazareth, that after he 
had done, he gave the book again to the minister.''' Luke 
4: 20. — Prideaux' Connexion, Part i. Book 6, Sect. 4. 



44 THECHURCH. 

the Philippians, mentions no church officers 
but bishops and deacons. And when giving 
directions to Timothy respecting the qualifica- 
tions of church officers, he mentions none but 
bishops and deacons; — a manifest indication 
that these were the only standing officers in 
the apostolical churches, and of course that 
bishop and presbyter relate to the same office. 
See Phil. 1:1. 1 Tim. 3: 1. And this con- 
clusion is established, by a reference to other 
passages. Titus was left in Crete, that he 
might ordain elders or presbyters in every 
city. But in a following verse, these elders 
are denominated bishops. Tit. 1: 5-1. In 
his valedictory address to the elders of the 
church at Ephesus, Paul calls these elders 
overseers or (as in the original) bishops. Acts 
20: 17, 28. Peter exhorts elders to take the 
oversight of the flock, or (as it is in the 
Greek) to do the work of bishops, not by con- 
straint, but willingly. 1 Pet. 5: 2. These 
passages show that, in the language of the 
apostles, elder and bishop denote the same 
office, and are applied often to the same 
person. 

4. It has been urged in favor of the three 
orders of ministers in the church of Christ, 



THECHURCH. 45 

that during his personal ministry, there were 
three orders, viz., himself, the twelve apostles, 
and the seventy. But to this argument there 
are many objections; as, 

(1.) It represents Christ as a minister in 
his own church, — a servant of himself ! 

(2.) It involves the absurdity and arrogance 
of supposing that, on the death of Christ, the 
apostles were promoted to the same rank in 
the church, which he held during his life; and 
that, on the death of the apostles, bishops were 
placed in the same exalted rank. They be- 
came all of them literally, what one of them 
has arrogantly claimed to be, Christ's vicars, 
his vicegerents upon the earth. 

(3.) This argument implies farther, that 
the seventy were an order of ministers distinct 
from the apostles, and inferior to them; — a 
isupposition of which the gospels furnish not 
a particle of proof. To be sure, the twelve 
were commissioned at one time, and the sev- 
enty at another; but they were commissioned 
to the same work, and in almost precisely the 
same words. (Compare Luke 9: 1-6, with 
Luke 10: 1-20.) During the lifetime of Je- 
sus, the work of the apostles was altogether 
preparatory, and so was that of the seventy; 



46 THE CHURCH. 

and both were commissioned to do the same 
things. 

(4.) The supposition before us leaves no 
place for the important preparatory ministry 
of John the Baptist. He surely must be ad- 
mitted into the number of ministers, and then 
we have four orders instead of three. 

(5.) It is objection enough to this argument, 
if there were no other, that during the life of 
Jesus, the Christian church had no organized 
existence. The old dispensation, with all its 
rules and ceremonies, continued in full force 
till the death of the Saviour. The vail of the 
temple was not rent in twain, till the hour of 
his death. The hand-writing of ordinances 
was not taken away, till it was nailed to his 
cross. But if the Christian church had no 
organized existence, before the death of 
Christ, then surely it could not have had an 
organized ministry. 

5. It has been urged again in favor of the 
three orders of ministers, that when the triad 
above considered had been broken up by the 
ascension of our Lord, it was almost imme- 
diately restored, by the appointment of the 
seven deacons. There were then the apostles, 
the seventy, and the deacons. It may be ob- 



THE CHURCH. 47 

jeeted to this argument, as to the preceding, 
that it supposes the apostles, on the ascension 
of Christ, to have come into the same rank 
which he had previously occupied; — a suppo- 
sition involving an arrogance of assumption, 
from which they would have shrunk back with 
horror. 

It may also be objected to this argument, 
that it mistakes altogether the nature and 
character of that ministry, by which the gos- 
pel dispensation was introduced. It supposes 
this ministry to have been settled and perma- 
nent, whereas it was obviously preparatory and 
temporary. Such was the ministry of John 
the Baptist. It accomplished its end, and 
passed away. Such would have been the 
ministry of the apostles, if they had not re- 
ceived a new and more extended commission, 
after the resurrection of the Saviour. And 
such was the ministry of the seventy. They 
were sent out for a specific purpose— to 
prepare the way of the Lord — to ''go before 
him, into every city and place whither he him- 
self would come." Luke 10: 1. The object 
of their ministry they soon accomplished, and 
then their service ended. Accordingly, we 
hear of them no more. There is not the slight-^ 



L 



4S THE CHURCH. 

est mention of them in any subsequent part 
of the gospel history. From the mere silence 
of Scripture respecting them, the conclusion 
is incontestible, that they had no existence, 
after the resurrection of Christ, as a commis- 
sioned and authorized body of ministers. 

I object further to the argument under con- 
sideration, that it supposes a necessity, and 
assigns a reason, for the appointment of dea- 
cons, of which the apostles seem never to 
have thought. In directing this appointment, 
instead of the plain account recorded in the 
sixth chapter of Acts, why did not the apostles 
say, *As we have now come into the place of 
the ascended Saviour, and the seventy have 
come into our place, therefore, let an order of 
deacons be created to come into their place.' 
A reason such as this for the appointment of 
deacons, in all probability never occurred to 
the apostles. Certain it is, they never urged 
it, and never could have urged it consistently 
with truth. 

It may be still farther objected to the argu- 
ment before us, not only that the apostles were 
not promoted into the place of the Saviour, 
and the seventy into the place of the apostles, 
but neither did th^ deacons come into the place of 



THE CHURCH. 49 

the seventy. Not to urge, what is commonly 
believed, that these deacons themselves be- 
longed to the number of the seventy, scarcely 
any two offices can be conceived of as more 
distinct, than those of the seventy, and of the 
deacons. The work of the seventy, as I have 
said, was altogether preparatory. They were 
to go before the face of Christ into every city 
and place whither he himself would come. 
On the contrary, the business of the deacons 
was to take charge of the property of the 
church, and make equitable distribution of it, 
in relieving the necessities of the poor. 

6. It is urged again, in proof of the three 
orders of ministers, that these orders actually 
existed in the apostolic churches. There were 
then the apostles, the presbyters, and deacons. 
And in proof that these three orders were de- 
signed to be perpetuated, it is urged that the 
apostles ordained successors to themselves. 
Such was Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus at 
Crete. Such were all the bishops of the prim- 
itive churches. And such, by an uninterrupt- 
ed succession, are the bishops of our own 
times. 

In examining this argument, it will be nec- 
essary to ascertain, so far as we can, the pre^ 
5 



50 THECHURCH. 

cise nature and character of the apostolical 
office. And in doing this, we may consider 
the apostles in a twofold light; first, as simple 
ministers of Christ ; and secondly, as ministers 
destined to a peculiar work, and clothed with 
peculiar authority and power. 

In the first place, the apostles may be con- 
sidered as simple ministers of Jesus Christ. 
They were commissioned as ministers, and the 
commission which Christ gave to them is the 
only one which he has ever given to his min- 
istering servants. It is that under which all 
his ministers now act, and to which they con- 
tinually appeal: ''Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature," &c. 
Mark 16: 15. 

And as the apostles were commissioned, 
like other ministers, so they often speak of 
themselves as mere ministers of Christ. " Let 
a man so account of us as of the ministers of 
Christ." ''Who hath made us able ministers 
of Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 4: 1. 2 Cor. 3: 6. 
The apostles often speak of themselves as in 
the rank o£ elders. " The elders which are 
among you I exhort, who am also an elder." 
I Pet. 5: 1. "The elder unto the elect lady." 
" The elder unto the well beloved Gaius." 2 



THECHURCH. 51 

and 3 John. As simple ministers of Jesus 
Christ, the apostles have left successors after 
them. In this view, all Christ's faithful min- 
isters may be regarded as in the succession of 
the apostles. 

But the apostles were destined to a peculiar 
work, and were clothed with peculiar authority 
and powers; and in all that was peculiar to 
them, and which went to raise them above 
other ministers, it will appear that they have 
left no successors. 

(1.) The apostles were commissioned directly 
by Christ, as no other ministers of the gospel 
ever were. 

(2.) It was a part of the peculiar work of 
the apostles to bear witness to the actions and 
sufferings of Jesus. This is evident from what 
was said at the appointment of Matthias to the 
apostleship. ''One must be ordained to be a 
witness v/ith us of his resurrection." Acts 1:22. 
In this important part of their work, the apos- 
tles can have left no successors. 

(3.) As the first missionaries of Christ and 
founders of churches, the apostles have left no 
successors. None can pretend to have suc- 
ceeded to that degree of authority and influ- 
ence in the churches, which they rightfully 
possessed. 



52 THECHURCH. 

(4.) The apostles were inspired men; and as 
such, were qualified to publish doctrines to 
the churches, and to enact laws, which should 
carry with them the authority of God. Here, 
again, they have left no successors. 

(5.) The apostles were endowed, beyond 
others, with the power of performing miracles; 
for they not only wrought miracles themselves, 
but could impart this gift, by the laying on of 
their hands. See Acts 8: 15-20. Who has 
succeeded to them in this respect? 

(6.) The apostles not only had authority in 
the churches as inspired men, but they v/ere 
able to enforce this authority, by inflicting 
judgments on the disobedient. Thus Ananias 
and Sapphira were struck dead, at the word 
of Peter; and Elymas the sorcerer was smit- 
ten with blindness, at the word of Paul. Acts 
5: 1^10. 13: 11. To this terrific power of the 
apostles, Paul repeatedly alludes in his ad- 
dresses to the Corinthians. '' If 1 come again, 
I will not spare." " Shall I come unto you 
with a rod," &c. 2 Cor. 13: 2. 1 Cor. 4: 21. 
The apostles are here presented in another 
light, in which they manifestly have no suc- 
cessors. 

It follows from what has been said, that. 



THECHURCH. 53 

while in the mere office of gospel ministers, 
the apostles have been succeeded by all faith- 
ful ministers, from their own times to the 
present, in those things which went to distin- 
guish them from ordinary ministers, to raise 
them above them, and to confer a peculiarity 
and a superiority, the apostles have left no 
successors. From the nature of the case, 
they can have left none. And if any will pre- 
tend to be the successors of the apostles, in 
their high and peculiar character-^in that 
which went to distinguish them from ordinary 
ministers; then let them prove their succes- 
sion by something more than mere words. 
Let them show to the world that they are what 
the apostles once were. Have they received 
their commission directly from the Saviour? 
Were they eye-witnesses of his life, death, and 
resurrection? Have they claim to authority 
and influence as the first missionaries of 
Christ, and (under God) the founders of his 
church? Have they inspiration — and the gift 
of miracles — and the power to impart this gift? 
Are they armed, as the apostles were, with 
the judgments of heaven, and authorized to 
inflict these judgments on the rebellious? In 
other words, are they what the apostles were ? 
5* 



54 THE CHURCH. 

Have they succeeded to all or to aught of that 
which went to give to the apostles their pecu- 
liarity and authority in the church of Christ? 
If not, then let them boast no more of their 
being the successors of the apostles. They 
can be successors of the apostles in no other 
sense than as all faithful gospel ministers are ; 
— in no other sense than as being the simple 
ministers of Jesus. 

If bishops, as a distinct and superior order 
of ministers, have succeeded to the apostles, 
then why are they not called apostles? Why 
has the name of office been changed? These 
two names are not synonymous; nor were 
they ever so considered in the church of 
Christ. An apostle is not a bishop, nor is a 
bishop an apostle. An apostle is a mission- 
ary; a minister at large; one who has (what 
Paul tells us he had) "the care of all the 
churches." 2 Cor. 11: 28. A bishop has, 
or should have, a pastoral charge. He is the 
overseer of a particular flock. He is con- 
fined in his attentions to a particular field of 
labor. But to what particular fields of labor 
were the apostles confined? To what part of 
the Christian world did not their influence 
and authority extend? It is evidence enough 



THE CHURCH. 55 

that bishops, in their alleged superior capaci- 
ty, have not succeeded to the apostles, that 
they have not succeeded to the name of the 
apostles, nor to that which this name specifi- 
cally imports. In short, they are not apos- 
tles, either as to the name, or the thing. ^ 

It is alleged that the apostles, in their su- 
perior capacity, ordained successors to them- 
selves. Such, in particular, was Timothy at 
Ephesus, and Titus at Crete. But what evi- 
dence have we that Timothy was ever bishop 
of Ephesus.'' He is never so called in the 
Scriptures; nor does it appear that he ever 
had a permanent residence at Ephesus. '* I 
besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when 
I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest 
charge some that they teach no other doc- 

* "The function of an apostle differed widely from that 
of a bishop; and I therefore do not think that James, who 
was an apostle, was ever appointed to, or discharged, the 
episcopal office at Jerusalem. The government of the 
church in that city, it rather seems to me, was placed in 
the hands of its presbyters, but so as that nothing of mo- 
ment could be done, without the advice and authority of 
James, the same sort of respectful deference being paid to 
his will, as had formerly been manifested for that of the 
apostles at large." — Mosheim's Commentaries y Vol. i, 
p. 231. 



S6 THE CHURCH. 

trine." 1 Tim. 1: 3. Here is all the proof 
which the Scriptures furnish, that Timothy 
was constituted bishop of Ephesus. And this 
is not only no proof at all, but strong proof of 
the contrary supposition; as it is evident, from 
the passage itself, that Timothy's mission at 
Ephesus was a temporary one, which he was 
expected to discharge, and then leave the 
place. Paul and Timothy were at Ephesus 
together, at the time of the uproar occasioned 
by Demetrius.^ On account of this disturb- 
ance, Paul left suddenly, and ''departed for 
to go into Macedonia; '^ (Acts 20: 1) and he 
besought Timothy to remain for a time, that 
he might farther instruct and regulate the 
newly planted Ephesian church. Timothy, 
without doubt, did remain for a time, and then 
commenced following the apostle as usual; 
for subsequent to this date, we repeatedly 
hear of Timothy in connection with the apos- 
tle, but never as a permanent resident at 

* Timothy and Erastus had previously been sent into 
Macedonia, but while Paul ** stayed in Asia for a season," 
Timothy returned to him; so that he was with him at Eph- 
esus at the time of the disturbance. See Acts 19 : 23. 
Also Acts 20 : 1, and 1 Tim. 1:3. I follow the chronol- 
ogy of Lardner here. 



THE CHURCH. 57 

Ephesus. 2 Cor. 1: 1. Phil. 1: 1. Heb. 
13: 23. 

That Paul constituted Timothy an apostle 
or bishop at Ephesus, before leaving the place 
to go into Macedonia, and before writing to 
him this first epistle, is contradicted by all the 
circumstances of his leaving, and by the very 
language of the epistle itself As remarked 
above, he left Ephesus suddenly, and w^ithout 
opportunity for so solemn an act as that of 
constituting a new apostle. And then the lan- 
guage of the epistle, though kind and re- 
spectful, is not that of one apostle to another, 
but rather that of Paul the apostle to a beloved 
youHg minister, whose appropriate labor and 
privilege it was to attend upon him, and to 
execute his orders. 

But there is another consideration, which 
proves conclusively that Timothy could not 
have been ordained bishop of Ephesus, at the 
time referred to in this first epistle. At a 
subsequent period, when Paul called for the 
Ephesian elders, and met them at Miletus, 
there was no bishop over them. In his ad- 
dress to them on this occasion, no mention is 
made of Timothy as their bishop, or of his 
ever having been their bishop. Indeed, no 



58 THECHURCH. 

mention is made of any bishop, except as they 
were all bishops alike. It is morally certain 
that Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus at 
the time of this meeting, and that he never 
had been. And it is quite certain that Paul 
did not constitute him bishop of Ephesus sub- 
sequent to this meeting, as the apostle never 
Vas at Ephesus more. He never saw the 
faces of these elders afterwards. Acts 20: 
25.^ I hold therefore, not only that there is 
no evidence in Scripture that Timothy was 
ever bishop of Ephesus, but that there is 
abundant evidence to the contrary. Indeed, 
Timothy was not a bishop in any sense, ex- 
cept as all Christ's ministers may be denom- 
inated bishops. Timothy was an evangelist. 
He is expressly called an evangelist; and 
called so, long after his alleged exaltation to 
a bishopric — to an apostleship. 2 Tim. 4: 5. 
An evangelist, in the primitive church, was 
an itinerant preacher, a missionary, who had 
no settled pastoral charge, who labored fre- 
quently in company with some one of the 
apostles, and was under their direction. Such 
was Philip; and such was Timothy; — and this 

* Appendix, Note E. 



THE CHURCH. 59 

^ account of the matter agrees with all that we 
find written or said of Timothy in the New 
* Testament. 

1 Of Titus, it is said, ''For this cause left I 
^ thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order 
^ the things that are wanting, and ordain elders 
} in every city, as I had appointed thee." 
' Chap. 1 : 5. But this passage, so far from 
'\ proving that Titus was, at this time, bishop of 
^ Crete, furnishes evidence to the contrary. It 
^ appears on the face of it, that Titus was left 
in Crete for a temporary and specific purpose, 
^ which purpose being accomplished, he would 
I naturally be called away to some other field 
of labor. Accordingly, we hear of Titus af- 
terwards, not as residing in Crete, and exer- 
cising the office of a bishop there, but as gone 
to another place. 2 Tim. 4: 10. 

Titus, like Timothy, was, no doubt, an 
i evangelist; and was left in Crete to "do the 
work of an evangelist." And if it be objected, 
that 07'daining elders is the work, not of evan- 
gelists, but of bishops only, I have only to say, 
let this he 'proved. The presbyters at Antioch 
laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, before 
they were sent out on their first mission to 
the heathen. Acts 13: 3. Timothy was or- 



60 T H E C H U R C H . 

dained ''by the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery." 1 Tim. 4: 14. Until it is proved, 
in face of these examples, that bishops only 
have the power of ordination, it never can be 
proved that Titus was a bishop, simply because 
he took it upon him to ordain. 

If Titus was bishop of Crete, he was not a 
parochial, but a diocesan bishop; — bishop, not 
of a single church, but of a great many 
churches, scattered over this extensive island. 
In other words, if he was bishop at all, he was 
such a bishop as was not known, and cannot 
be found in the church of Christ, during the 
next two hundred years. To my own mind, 
this is conclusive evidence, that Titus never 
was bishop of Crete. And thus the alleged 
apostolic succession of bishops fails, in the first 
stages of it, and the argument derived from it 
falls to the ground.^ 

7. It has been urged in proof of a third or- 
der of ministers in the church, that, in his 
messages to the seven churches of Asia, our 
Saviour addresses an individual in each, whom 
he calls its angel. But how do we know that 
this angel was a bishop.^ The words angel 



* See Appendix, Note F. 



THE CHURCH. 61 

and bishop are not synonymous, nor have we 
any authority in the primitive age for using 
them interchangeably. 

Some have supposed that, by the angel of 
the church, our Saviour intended the church 
itself, or the ministry of the church, without 
applying the term to any particular individual. 
In proof of this it has been urged, that the 
address, in every instance, is properly to the 
church, and that the plural number is some- 
times used in place of the singular. *'The 
devil shall cast some of you into prison, that 

I ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation 
ten days; " — a singular form of expression to 
to be used, in reference to an individual. 

Others have supposed that the angel of the 
church was the presiding presbyter in the 

i church. In each of these churches there 
were, probably, several presbyters who, when 
they met for business or devotion, would need 
a moderator, or presiding officer. Such an 
officer was common in the next century, and 
was called the president of the church. Pos- 
sibly, the usage may have been introduced as 
early as the close of the first century; and the 
presiding presbyter or elder may be denomi- 
nated by our Saviour the angel of the church. 
6 



62 THE CHURCH. 

This supposition is the more probable, since, 
according to Prideaux, one of the presbyters pf 
the Jewish synagogue — the one who officiated 
in offering the public prayers — was customa- 
rily called the angel of the congregation.^ 

8. It is further urged, in proof of the three 
orders of ministers in the church of Christ, 
that these orders prevailed in the ages imme- 
diately succeeding the apostles, and (with few 
exceptions) have prevailed in all periods since. 
In reply to this argument, it is proposed, not 
to quote the fathers at length — our limits do 
not admit of this; — but to give, in as few 
words as possible, the results of a full and la- 
borious examination o^ ike fathers of the first 
two centuries, with reference to this very 
subject. 

Hermas, the author of the Shepherd, was a 
member of the church at Rome, and lived in 
the first century. He uses the terms bishop 
and presbyter promiscuously, and speaks of 
presbyters as 'presiding over the church at 
Rome. Vis. ii, Sect. 4. 

One of the earliest and best accredited pieces 
of Christian antiquity is the first epistle of the 

* Connexion, Part i, Book 6, Sect. 4. 



THE CHURCH. 63 

Roman Clement to the Corinthians. This 
epistle is addressed, not from one bishop to 
another, but from the church at Rome to the 
church at Corinth. In it the v/riter says, that 
the apostles every where appointed bishops 
arid deacons in the churches — making no men- 
tion of a third order. He says that presbyters 
had been placed over the church at Corinth, 
and complains that certain presbyters had 
been ejected from the episcopate. He exhorts 
the Corinthian brethren to restore these eject- 
ed presbyters, and to submit themselves to them. 
The phraseology of this celebrated epistle is 
precisely similar to that of Paul, on the same 
subject. No mention is made of more than 
two orders of church officers, and the terms 
bishop and presbyter are used continually as 
referring to the same office. Sect. 42-57. 

Of Polycarp we have only one epistle re- 
maining, which is addressed, not to the bishop, 
but to the church, at Philippi. In it the word 
bishop does not once occur. Polycarp exhorts 
the Philippians to be subject to their presbyters 
and deacons. Sect. 5. 

In what remains of Papias, there is no men- 
tion made of bishops, but of presbyters only. 
This father denominates the apostles presby- 



64 THE CHURCH. 

ters, **If I met any where with one who had 
conversed with the presbyters, I inquired after 
the sayings of the presbyters; what Andrew, 
what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas or 
James had said." In Euseb. Ecc. Hist., 
Book iii, Chap. 39. 

In the writings of Justin, there is no men- 
tion made of bishops. He speaks of one in 
each church as its president; and the president 
and deacon are the only church officers of 
which he gives us any account. Apol. i, 
pp. 95, 97. 

Irena^us uses the terms bishop and presby- 
ter interchangeably.'^ He speaks of * ^tradi- 
tions preserved in the churches through a 
succession of presbyters." Poly carp, who 

* " We ought to obey those presbyters who have sueces- 
sion from the apostles, who, with the succession of the 
episcopate^ received the certain gift of truth." "Such 
presbyters the church nourishes, concerning whom the 
prophet says, I will give you princes in peace, and bishops 
in righteousness." Advers. HcBres, Lib. 4., Cap. 43, 44. 

Writing to Victor, bishop of Rome, Irenseus repeatedly 
denominates the early bishops of Rome, those who had 
preceded Victor, presbyters. See Euseb. Ecc. Hist., Book 
5., Chap. 24. 



THE CHURCH. 65 

was bishop of the church at Smyrna, he re- 
presents as "an apostolical presbyter. ""^ 

Clemens Alexandrinus (a presbyter) speaks 
of himself, and others like him, as having rule 
over the churches, and as being called pastors. 
He sometimes speaks of bishop and presbyter 
as the same, and sometimes makes a distinc- 
tion between them.| 

Various epistles have been published under 
the name of Ignatius, an early minister or 
bishop of the church at Antioch. From among 
these, seven have been selected, abridged, 
and published by archbishop Wake, as being 
probably genuine. There is too much evi- 
dence, however, that these seven are spurious, 
or at least that they have been interpolated, 
and with special reference to this very sub- 
ject. J In these epistles, the three orders of 
ministers are pretty frequently and distinctly 
recognised. There is this, however, to be 
considered: The bishop of Ignatius is never a 
diocesan bishop, but the mere pastor of a sin- 
gle church. II 

* Epis. to Florinus, in Euseb. Ecc. Hist, Book 5, Ch. 20. 
t Paedog. Lib. i, vi. See also Tract " Q,uis Dives," &c. 
:J: See x'\ppendix. Note G. 

il Bishop Burnet says " the names of bishop and pres- 
et 



66 THE CHURCH. 

There can be no doubt that, in the third and 
fourth centuries, and onwards, important 
changes took place in the government of the 
churches. The power of the clergy was in- 
creased, and the liberties of the churches were 
diminished, and ultimately destroyed. In the 
third and fourth centuries, bishops generally 
claimed to be a distinct and superior order of 
ministers. Still, they had not the exclusive 
power of ordination, nor was it believed, by 
the more intelligent Christians, that the dis- 
tinction between them and presbyters was of 
apostolic origin. Thus Jerome testifies that 
it had been the custom at Alexandria, for 
more than two hundred years after Christ, for 
presbyters to choose and to constitute their 
bishops.^ And Eusebius affirms that, in his 
day, evangelists sometimes "ordained pas- 
tors. | 

The author of an ancient commentary, as- 
cribed to Ambrose, says, "The ordination of 
a bishop and presbyter is the same;" since 
"a bishop is only the first among presbyters." 

byter are used for the same thing in Scripture, and also 
are used promiscuously by the writers of the two first cen- 
turies.''^ See Vindication of the Church of Scotland, p. 311. 
* Epid. to Evagrius. t Ecc. Hist., Lib. ifi, Cap. 37. 



THE CHURCH. 67 

And again; ''The first presbyters were called 
bishops;" and ''in Egypt, the presbyters con- 
secrate, if the bishop be not present."^ 

In another ancient work, ascribed to Au- 
gustine, the author says, "The apostle Paul 
proves that by presbyter is to be understood 
bishop; since he instructs Timothy, whom he 
had ordained a presbyter, hov/ he ought to 
constitute bishops. For what is a bishop, but 
a chief presbyter, a high-priest? For in Al- 
exandria, and in all Egypt, when the bishop 
is absent, the presbyter consecrates."']' 

Eutychius, a patriarch of Alexandria {A. D. 
930), says, "Mark, the evangelist, appointed 
twelve presbyters, who should reside with the 
patriarch, that when the patriarchate might 
be vacant, they might choose one of their 
number, on whose head the other eleven might 
impose hands, and bless him, and constitute 
him patriarch. "J 

The manner in which the distinction be- 
tween bishop and presbyter came into the 
church is pretty fully explained by Jerome, 

* Com. in 1 Tim. 3 : 10. Eph. 4 : 11. 
t Gluaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. Quaest. 101. 
t I*» Gieseler'» Ectr. Hki.y Sect. 32. 



68 THE CHURCH. 

in his Commentary on Tit. 1:5. **A pres- 
byter," says he, ''is the same as a bishop; 
and before there were, by the instigation of 
the devil, parties in religion, the churches 
were governed by the joint councils of presby- 
ters. But afterwards, it was decreed, through- 
out the whole 'world, that one chosen from 
among the presbyters should be put over the 
rest, and that the whole care of the church 
should be committed to him." Jerome pro- 
ceeds to support his opinion as to the original 
equality of presbyters and bishops, by com- 
menting on Phil. 1: 1, and on the interview 
of Paul with the Ephesian elders; and then 
adds, ''Our* design in these remarks is to 
show, that among the ancients, jj'^^sbyter and 
bishop were the very same. But by degrees," 
says he, " that the plants of dissension might 
be plucked up, the whole concern was devolv- 
ed upon an individual. As the presbyters 
therefore know, that they are subjected, by 
the custom of the church, to him who is set over 
them, so let the bishops know that they are 
greater than presbyters, more by custom, than 
by any real appointment of Christ." In his 
epistles to Evangelus and Oceanus, Jerome 
assumes and maintains the same positions as 
in the foregoing passage. 



THE CHURCH. 69 

Augustine held to the same doctrine. Writ- 
ing to Jerome, he says, ''Ahhough, accord- 
ing to the names of honor which the usage of 
the church has notv acquired, the office of bish- 
op is greater than that of presbyter, yet in 
many things is Augustine inferior to Jerome." 
Epis. 82. 

Chrysostom and Theophylact in like man- 
ner affirm, that ''while the apostles lived, and 
for some ages after, the names of bishops 
and presbyters were not distinguished."^ 

'*It is remarkable," says Gieseler, ''how 
long the opinion of the original identity of 
bishops and presbyters was retained in the 
church."! Bernald (A. D. 1088), the most 

* Horn. i. In Phil. i. 

t The judgment of Gieseler in regard to the question 
before us is thus expressed : " At the head of each church " 
(in the first century) " were the elders, all officially of 
equal rank, though in several instances a peculiar author- 
ity seems to have been conceded to some one individual, 
from personal considerations." — Sect. 29. *' After the 
death of the apostles, and the pupils of the apostles, to 
whom the general direction of the churches had always 
been conceded, some one among the presbyters of each 
church was suffered gradually to take the lead in its af- 
fairs. In the same irregular way, the title bishop was ap- 
propriated to this first presbyter." — Sect. 32. 



70 THE CHURCH. 

zealous advocate of Gregory VII, appeals on 
this point to the New Testament, and to Je- 
rome, and then proceeds, '' Since, therefore, 
presbyters and bishops may have been said 
anciently to have been the same, it is not to be 
doubted, that they had the same power of 
binding and loosing, and every thing else which 
is now peculiar to bishops.'^ Even Pope Ur- 
ban ii, at the council of Beneventum (A. D. 
1091), speaking of 'Hhe sacred orders of dea- 
cons and presbyters," says, *' Since these only 
the primitive church is said to have had, con- 
cerning these alone we have a command of 
the apostle.^ 

Nicholas Tudeschus, an archbishop (A. D. 
1458), affirms, '^Formerly, presbyters govern- 
ed the church in common, and ordained priests.'^ 

Indeed, this was the generally received 
doctrine of the Catholic church, insisted on 
by both canonists and schoolmen, as Bishop 
Burnet testifies, until past the middle of the 

* Nearly the same words occur in th^ Sententia of Pe- 
ter Lombard, Lib. 4, Dist. 24, Cap. 8. Hence Gratian 
adopts, without hesitation, the above cited passages from* 
Jerome. — Dist. 95, Cap. 5. The same views are also 
maintained in the Glossa to the Decrees of Gratian. The 
same view is expressed again, and without opposition, by 
the papal court canonist, J. Paul Lancellot, A. D 1563. 



THECHURCH. 71 

sixteenth century, when the opposite opinion 
was affirmed by the Council of Trent. It 
was on the ground of this decision of the 
Council of Trent, and with reference to this 
very subject, that Michael de Medina did not 
hesitate to declare (A. D. 1570), that ''the 
ancient fathers were material heretics ; al- 
though," says he, '' on account of the rever- 
ence due to these fathers, th(:;ir opinion was 
not openly condemned" in the Council. 

At the first dawning of the Reformation, 
the doctrine of the original parity of Christ's 
ministers was distinctly asserted. So taught 
John Wickliffe, in the fourteenth century. 
So taught Cranmer, and Jewell, and Grindall, 
and Whitgift, and most of the early reform- 
ers and dignitaries of the English Episcopal 
church. Bishop Jewell says expressly, in his 
remarks on Augustine, ''The office of a bishop 
is above the office of a priest, not by the author- 
ity of Scripture, but after the names of honor 
which, through the custom of the church, 
have now obtained." 

In 1543, was published, in England, a very 
remarkable treatise, called "A necessary 
Erudition for a Christian Man." It was drawn 
up by a committee of bishops and divines, and 



72 THECHURCH. 

read and approved by the lords spiritual and 
temporal, and bj the lower house of parlia- 
ment. It was corrected by the hand of king 
Henry VIII, and on this account was some- 
times called " The King^s Book.'^ This book 
makes no valid distinction between bishops 
and priests, and says that '^of these two order's 
only, priests and deacons, Scripture maketh ex- 
press mention.^ ^ About the same time with the 
publication of '' the King's Book," there was 
another paper drawn up in England, and sign- 
ed by the vicegerent Cromwell, the two arch- 
bishops, eleven bishops, and twenty divines 
and canonists, declaring, among other things, 
*' that in the New Testament, there is no men- 
tion made but of deacons or ministers, and 
priests or bishops."^ 

Bishop Burnet says, ''As for the notion of 
the distinct offices of bishop and presbyter, / 
confess it is not so clear to me; and therefore, 
since I look upon the sacramental actions as 
the highest of sacred performances, I cannot 
but acknowledge that those who are empow- 
ered for them" (as presbyters confessedly 
are) " must be of the highest office in the 
church. ^^ '\ 

* Burnet's Hist, of the Reformation, Vol. i, p. 585. 
t Vindication of the Church of Scotland, p. 336. 



THE CHURCH. 73 

Archbishop Usher, in his Letter to Dr. Ber- 
nard, says, '' 1 have ever declared my opinion 
to be, that bishop and presbyter differ in de- 
gree only, not in order; and that in places 
were bishops cannot be had, ordination by 
presbyters stands valid.'' In his answer to 
Baxter, Usher also says, ''That the king 
(Charles I) having asked him, at the Isle of 
Wight, whether he found in antiquity that 
presbyters alone ordained any, he replied, yes; 
and that he could show his majesty more, even 
where presbyters alone successively ordained 
bishops.'' He then instanced the case referred 
to by Jerome, in his epistle to Evangelus, ''of 
the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and 
making their own bishops, from the days of 
Mark, the evangelist, till those of Heraclas 
and Dionysius." ^ 

Bishop Crofts says, " I hope my reader will 
see what weak proofs are brought for this dis- 
tinction and superiority of order," between 
bishops and presbyters; "no scripture, no 
primitive general council, no general consent 
of primitive doctors and fathers, no, not one 
primitive father of note, speaking particularly 
and home to our purpose."! 

♦Life of Baxter, p. 206. t Naked Truth, p. 47. 

7 . 



74 THE CHURCH. 

Selden, the best read in ecclesiastical an- 
tiquity of any man of his time, and whom 
Grotins styles ^'the glory of the English na- 
tion," turned the doctrine of the divine right 
of bishops into a jest. 

Archbishop Bancroft is said to have been 
the first of the English Protestant clergy, who 
insisted on the divine right of bishops; and 
even he, it would seem, did not hold this opin- 
ion constantly; for (A. D. 1610) when it was 
moved that the Scotch bishoos elect miiijht first 
be ordained presbyters, Bancroft replied that 
there was no need of it, since ordination by 
presbyters was valid. ^ 

Archbishop Laud, of persecuting memory, 
was a strenuous and consistent advocate of the 
divine right of bishops. He undertook the 
defence of this position, while a member of 
the university, for which he received, it is 
said, a college censure. He persisted, how- 
ever, in maintaining the doctrine, and had the 
happiness to see it prevail under his adminis- 
tration. It has been the belief of high-church 
Episcopalians, in England and x\merica, from 
that period to the present. 

*In Neal's Hist, of the Puritans, Vol. ii, p. 413. 



THECHURCH. 75 

I have examined now, to as great length as 
my limits will permit, the claims of our Epis- 
copal brethren to their three orders of minis- 
ters, or standing officers, in the church of 
Christ. That there are two orders, presbyters 
and deacons, is by common consent admitted. 
It devolves on those who insist on a third and 
superior order to vindicate their claim. The 
labor of proof is on their hands. We have 
examined the arguments commonly adduced 
in proof of this point, and find that they amount 
to nothing. Indeed, in the course of the ex- 
amination, abundant evidence has been elicit- 
ed to show that the alleged divine right of 
bishops is unfounded. 

We come back, then, with entire confidence 
upon what we conceive to be the doctrine of 
the New Testament, that there are but two 
distinct orders or classes of officers in the 
church of Christ; the one having charge of 
the spiritual concerns of the church, the other 
of its temporal concerns; the one commonly 
denominated bishops or presbyters, the other 
deacons. 

Some have thought that preaching belongs 
to the official work of a deacon. But we have 
no evidence of this in the original appointment 



76 THE CHURCH. 

of deacons, nor in the charge given to Timo- 
thy as to their qualifications. The first dea- 
cons Were appointed, not to^ssist the apostles 
in preaching, but to relieve them of a burthen 
of secular cares and duties, that so theij might 
give themselves more entirely to the ministry 
of the word. Acts 6:4. 

Without doubt, the primitive deacons did 
every thing in their power, by conversation 
and exhortation, to promote the spread of the 
gospel. Thus Stephen was employed, when 
apprehended for trial, immediately previous 
to his death. It is moreover, unquestionable, 
that those who used the office of a deacon 
well were, in many instances, soon promoted 
to the higher office. Thus, Philip the deacon 
is afterwards spoken of as an evangelist. Acts 
21: 8. The probability is that he was con- 
stituted an evangelist, previous to his visit to 
Samaria, and to his being engaged in preach- 
ing and baptizing there. ^ 

Church officers should be officially qualified 

*" Preaching," sayar Bingham, "in the modern sense 
of the word, ^. e., the delivering of public homilies or dis- 
courses, was regarded as the proper office of the bishops 
and presbyters, and not of the deacons.^' — Orig, Ecc, 
Book 2, Chap. 20, Sect. 2. 



THECHURCH. 77 

or constituted by ordination. This is accord- 
ing to the example of the apostles. The first 
deacons were ordained; and I know of no 
good reason why deacons, in our own time, 
should not be set apart to their very respon- 
sible office after the same manner. 

Ministers of the gospel, too, should be or- 
dained. Until they are ordained, they are not 
properly invested with the office of a minister, 
and are not qualified to administer the sacra- 
ments of the church. 

It has been insisted that bishops alone pos- 
sess the power of ordination. But in showing 
that bishop and presbyter denote the same 
office, we put an end to this high claim. 

On the other hand, it has been insisted that 
churches have the right to ordain their minis- 
ters; and, as an abstract right, to be exercised 
only in cases of extreme necessity, this per- 
haps may be admitted. Still, this is not the 
way in which church officers ordinarily should 
be constituted. In the New Testament, and 
in the first ages of the church, we find this 
work invariably performed by ministers. In- 
deed, it is properly committed to ministers; 

and should never be undertaken by others, 

7# 



78 THE CHURCH. 

except in cases of such extreme necessity as 
knows no law. ^ 



SECTION IX. 

Church Discipline, 

The discipline of a church, in the larger 
sense of the term, includes all those principles 
and rules which are adopted, with a view to 
the purity, order, peace, and efficiency of its 
members. In a more restricted sense, church 

* Cases of necessity sometimes occurred in the prim- 
itive church. " Frumentius and ^Edesius, two young 
men, who had no external call or commission to preach 
the gospel, being carried captive into India, converted a 
nation, and settled several churches among them.^^ " The 
Iberians were first converted by a captive woman, who 
established churches^ and constituted the king and queen 
' preachers of the gospel to their people.''^ — Socrat, Ecc. 
Hist., Lib. i, Cap. 19, 20. Theod., Lib. i, Cap. 23. 
Yet it would be absurd to infer, from cases such as these, 
that to laymen and women was entrusted, in ordinary cir- 
cumstances, the right of ordination. 

By the early settlers of New England, lay ordinations 
were encouraged, and often practised. See Cambridge 
Platform, Chap. 9. But in this respect, our fathers verged, 
obviously, to an extreme of independency. 



THE CHURCH. 79 

discipline has respect to that course of treat- 
ment which churches are called upon to pursue 
towards offending members, including instruc- 
tion, warning, admonition, reproof, excommu- 
nication, &c. It is in this latter sense, that 
the subject here claims our consideration. 

The proper subjects of church discipline, 
then, are offending members ; — those who have 
entered into covenant with the church, and 
placed themselves under its watch and care, 
and who are known to walk in a disorderly 
manner. With such persons, the church is 

I bound to have recourse to discipline. It is 
bound to take measures with them, for their 
reformation, or exclusion. 

The power of discipline is evidently lodged 
in the church. It is the duty of individual 

I members to use the milder methods of warning 
and reproof; but when these fail, it belongs 
to the church, as a body, publicly to admonish 
and exclude the offender. 

This is the natural right of the churches. 
As it belongs to them to admit members, they 
ought to have the right, in case individuals 
prove unworthy, to exclude them. And this 
right of the churches is expressly recognised 
in the New Testament. To the aggrieved 



80 THECHURCH. 

brother, Christ says, '^ Tell it to the church; 
and if he neglect to hear the church, let him 
be unto thee as an heathen man and a pub- 
lican;" — a form of expression which clearly 
implies that it belongs to the church to hear 
and judge of offences, and to admonish and (if 
need be) exclude the offender. Paul, writing 
to the Corinthian church, says, ''Purge out 
the old leaven;" and again, '' Put away from 
among yourselves ihdii -wick^^ person." 1 Cor. 
5:7, 13. He exhorts the Roman brethren to 
''mark those which cause divisions and of- 
fences, and avoid them;" and the Thessalo- 
nians to "withdraw themselves from every 
brother that walketh disorderly." Rom. 16: 
17. 2 Thess. 3:6. It is evident from these 
passages, and others like them, that the power 
of discipline is vested in the churches, and that 
on them rests the solemn responsibility of 
maintaining it. 

The ends to be answered by church disci- 
pline are, first, the recovery, if it be possible, 
of the offender. He has broken the covenant 
of the church, has gone astray, and is in 
danger of perishing in his sin. His brethren 
are bound to him by solemn ties; they feel for 
him, and are ready to do all in their power 
for his recovery. 



THE CHURCH. 81 

But whether they can restore the offender 
or not, they are under obligations to regard 
the second great end of discipline, which is 
the honor of religion, and the purity of the 
church. By the fall of a church member, 
religion is disgraced, and the church is de- 
filed; and there is no way in which the evil 
can be removed, but by the recovery of the 
offender, or his exclusion. He must either 
make confession of his sins, and return to his 
duty, or he must be separated from the com- 
munion of the church. To these great ends 
of discipline — the recovery of the offender, if it 
be possible, or his exclusion from the church — 
all the steps in a process of discipline should 
be directed. 

It has been made a question, how far we 
are to consider the direction of Christ, in the 
eighteenth chapter of Matthew, as. a rule of 
church discipline. In reply, I think it may 
be safely said, that the spirit of this rule should 
be regarded always, and the letter of it, so far 
as circumstances will allow. Except in cases 
of notorious and flagrant crime, or where the 
offender is quite out of the reach of his breth- 
ren, there should always be, in the first in- 
stance, private admonition. Let some suitable 



82 THE CHURCH. 

person go to the offender, in a private and 
frifMidly manner, and tell him of his fauh, and 
urge him to repentance and reformation. Let 
him, if need be, repeat this labor of love. If 
the offence is known only to one member of 
the church, and no sufficient proof of it can 
be adduced, the individual who knows of it 
can labor only in a private way. He cannot, 
with propriety or safety, bring it before the 
church. If he cannot gain his brother by 
private admonition, he must leave him to the 
decisions of the judgment day. ^ 

But if the offence is not strictly private — if 
it is susceptible of proof, then, when the in- 
cipient steps have failed of their object, the 
case must be brought before the church. A 
written complaint should be lodged with the 
pastor, or presiding officer, with a request 

* Nor may he, on account of the offence of his brother, 
absent himself from the communion of the church. To 
do this would be to commit an oflence against the whole 
church, and expose himself to censure, without any suffi- 
cient reason. T can think of no case of offence or griev- 
ance, on account of which a professing Christian, so long 
as he believed it his duty to remain connected with a 
church, would be justified in turning away from its com- 
munion. 



THE CHURCH. 83 

that it be laid before the church. If the 
church vote to receive and act upon the com- 
plaint, as in all ordinary cases they should, a 
day is set apart for trial, when the complain- 
ant is to establish his charges by proof. If 
the church decide that the charges, or any 
considerable portion of them, are sustained, 
the offender is suspended from communion, 
and an admonition is sent to him. If he does 
not *' hear the church *' in this, a second ad- 
monition is sometimes sent. See Tit. 3: 10. 
If this is disregarded, he is then formally and 
solemnly excommunicated. 

If the offender is dissatisf]ed with this de- 
cision of the church, he has the right of ap- 
peal to a mutual council; and it is the duty of 
the church, ordinarily, to unite with him in 
i calling such a council, if he desires it. Should 
the church refuse his request for a council, 
he has a right to call an exparte council. It 
is to be understood, however, that councils 
have no right to dictate to a church, or to 
impose their decisions upon it. They can 
only express an opinion, and give advice, 
leaving the church at liberty to act in view of 
the advice given, according to its own sense 
of propriety and duty, 



84 THE CHURCH. 

The satisfaction to be required of offenders 
is, evidence of repentance ; — confession of sin^ 
and reformation of life. While the offence is 
private, a confession may be private. But 
when the offence has been brought before the 
church, or in any way has become public, a 
public confession must be required. Nothing 
short of this can wipe away the dishonor done 
to religion, and remove scandal from the 
church. Every true penitent will desire that 
his confession should be as public as his of- 
fence. Still, due care ought to be taken, that 
the feelings of penitents be not ^needlessly 
wounded in cases of this nature ; and that 
feelirigs of unkindness and revenge, which 
may be harbored against them, be not inten- 
tionally consulted or gratified. 

Excommunicated persons should be consid- 
ered, not as released from their covenant ob- 
ligations, but as breakers of covenant. They 
should be regarded with feelings of sorrow 
and concern, and should be made the subjects 
of special prayer. Where any good is likely 
to result from such a course, they are to be 
avoided and shunned. They are to be denied 
the society and countenance of Christians, 
that they may be humbled and ashamed, I see 



THE CHURCH. 85 

no good reason, however, for the scrupulous- 
ness which some have manifested, in refusing 
to eat with them, and in denying to them the 
customary civilities of life. ^ 

It is incumbent on the church, and on all 
its members, to seek the good of excommuni- 
cated persons, and to be ready, at all times, 
to accept of their penitence, to rejoice in their 
reformation, and to welcome them back to the 
bosom of the church. 

It follows from what has been said, that 
church discipline is throughout a work of love. 
In the spirit of love it should be undertaken 
and pursued; and thus it should be regarded 
by all concerned in it. The church is no 
place in which to seek or to take revenge. 
And those who endeavor faithfully to maintain 
the discipline of the church should not be 
accused or suspected of seeking revenge. 

* " With such an one, no, not to eat.'^^ 1 Cor. 5: 11. 
To me it is evident, that the eating here spoken of is not 
that of a common meal, but of the Lord's supper; and the 
direction of the apostle is, *' If any man that is called a 
brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a 
railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; let such an one 
be put out of the church, as unworthy to sit with his breth- 
ren at the table of the Lord." 
8 



86 THE CHURCH. 

When I wander, it may be insensibly, from 
the path of duty, my Christian brother can 
afford me no so convincing evidence of his 
love, as in taking me kindly by the hand, and 
endeavoring to restore me. But this is church 
discipline. 



SECTION X. 

Privileges of Church Members. 

The privileges of church members are nu- 
merous and precious. 

1. They have the privilege of being in vis- 
ible covenant with God^ and of looking up to 
him as their covenant Father in Christ. They 
sustain a covenant relation to God, and he 
sustains the same important relation to them. 
They may think and speak of him as in a 
peculiar sense their God, while God regards 
them (unless they are hypocrites) as in the 
number of his own peculiar people. He has 
bound himself by a covenant obligation to 
protect them, and provide for them. He will 
in mercy bless them; in faithfulness correct 
them; and will overrule all things for their 



THE CHURCH. 87 

good. He will continue them in this world 
till he has rendered them meet for a better, 
and then will receive them to those everlasting 
mansions which Jesus has gone to prepare 
for his people. 

2. Church members are invisible covenant, 
not only with God, but with their brethren in 
the Lord. They are united in solemn cove- 
nant with those, who will watch over them, 
and pray for them — who will help them to 
bear their various burthens, and sympathize 
with them in their sorrows and their joys. 
They are in covenant with those, who will 
strengthen them in weakness, and comfort 
them in distress — who will warn them in the 
hour of danger, and reprove and endeavor to 
reclaim them, when they go astray. 

3. Church members have the privilege of 
coming to the special ordinances of the gospel, 
and of sealing their engagements to be the 
Lord's. They have the privilege of sitting 
with their Redeemer at his table, and par- 
taking of the memorials of his body and 
blood. 

4. Church members have many opportuni- 
ties of instruction which they could not enjoy 
out of the church, and are surrounded with 



88 THE CHURCH. 

peculiar and additional motives to strengthen 
them in the performance of duty. The pro- 
fessing Christian has many motives for watch- 
fulness, devotedness, and a religious life — he 
has many restraints upon his remaining cor- 
rupt propensities and hahits — he has many 
and great inducements to hold on his way, 
and to honor and adorn religion, which, had 
he not made an open profession of godliness, 
he could not feel. These additional induce- 
ments and restraints are a great help and 
blessing to the Christian. They are a secu- 
rity against the assaults of temptation, and 
conspire, with other things, to make up that 
amount of moral influence, by which the 
graces of the Christian are to be sustained, 
and he be fitted for the heavenly kingdom. 

From what has been said it appears, that 
the privileges of membership in the church of 
Christ are very great — so great, that they 
cannot be slighted and neglected by any 
Christian, without manifest and inevitable in- 
jury to his soul. 



THE CHURCH. 89 



SECTION XI. 



Concluding Remarks. 

From the remarks which have been made in 
the foregoing sections relative to the church 
of Christ, it follows that this is a highly hon- 
orable and important institution. In the minds 
of some, there exists a strong prejudice 
against the church — so strong, that the word 
itself can hardly be uttered without a sneer; 
and to be connected with the church is reck- 
oned a disgrace. But what reasonable grounds 
are there for such a prejudice ? What con- 
siderations can be urged to show, that the 
church is not an honorable and important 
institution? 

1. It is a divine institution. It originated, 
not in the wisdom or the will of man, but in 
the appointment of God; and would God es- 
tablish an institution that was not honorable 
and important? 

2. The church of God is a very ancient in- 
stitution. It is among the most ancient of 
which we have any knowledge. God had a 
church, and probably a visible church, before 

8# 



90 T H E C H U R C H. 

the flood. There was a people even then 
who, in distinction from others, were desig- 
nated '^the sons of God." Gen. 6: 2. The 
great antiquity of the church is a circum- 
stance, among others, which entitles it to 
high and grateful consideration. This is one 
of the two or three primeval institutions, which 
have come down to us from the remotest peri- 
ods of time. 

3. The true character of the church may 
be learned from its nature and constitution, as 
these have been exhibited in the foregoing 
pages. 

Each particular church, we have seen, is a 
voluntary association. None are admitted to 
it, or so much as proposed for admission, but 
with their own consent, and at their particular 
request. 

It is an association formed on the basis of 
the Scriptures, and instituted for the most 
important purposes. Its objects are, to main- 
tain the worship and ordinances of the gospel, 
and promote the better edification and greater 
usefulness of its members. 

Like other voluntary associations, each 
church has the power of electing its own offi- 
cers, of admitting and excluding members, 



THE CHURCH. 91 

and of transacting freely and independently, 
in open church meeting, its own proper ec- 
clesiastical concerns. No other body has- a 
right to control it, and no being but the Lord 
Jesus Christ has any claim of jurisdiction 
over it. 

Those who are admitted to the church must 
be persons, not only of outward morality, but 
of visible and professed piety. And when 
admitted, they publicly pledge themselves, 
both to God and their brethren, that they will 
scrupulously avoid what they know is wrong, 
and so live before the world as to honor their 
profession and glorify their Saviour. 

When any palpably violate this solemn 
pledge, they must be brought to repentance, 
or be excluded from the church. But in this 
necessary work of discipline, none are pro- 
ceeded against hastily, or without a fair op- 
portunity for defence. It is not until the 
offender has been labored with long and faith- 
fully in private*, has had opportunity to meet 
his accuser before the church, and has resist- 
ed all the efforts of his brethren to reclaim 
him, that he is finally excommunicated. 

Such are, in brief, the nature and constitu- 
tion of a Congregational church. And who 



92 THE CHURCH. 

can frame any plausible objection against such 
a body? Who can say, that its object is not 
good, that its constitution is not free and lib- 
eral, that its terms of admission are not such 
as best comport with its high and holy char- 
acter and aims, or that its methods of disci- 
pline and exclusion are not fair, equitable 
and efficient? 

4. In estimating the claims of the church, 
some regard must be had to the actual charac- 
ter of its members. Though the church of 
God on earth has at no period been free from 
the scandal of bad members, and perhaps 
never will be, still it may be safely affirmed, 
that the character of its members, in general, 
compared with that of other men, has been, 
and is, an honor to the church. In proof of 
this position, I might adduce the testimony of 
history. I might appeal to the terms of ad- 
mission into the church, and to the solemn 
profession which all its members are required 
to make. But I prefer to appeal to the im- 
plied concessions of those who are not friendly 
to the church. There are those who watch 
for the halting of professing Christians, and 
who, when they fall into sin, rejoice and tri- 
umph over them. But does not this imply, 



THE CHURCH. 93 

that the palpable failings of professors of reli- 
gion are matters of rather infrequent occur- 
rence ? Why watch for their imperfections, 
and rejoice over them, if they are events of 
common notoriety? 

The enemies of religion are often heard to 
compare themselves with particular members 
of the church. 'We are as good as this or 
that professor of religion; or we have done no 
worse than he.' But is it not evident from 
such comparisons, that professors of religion 
are regarded as in some sense a standard^ to 
\ which, if others conform, they think they do 
well enough? 

The irreligious are sometimes placed in 
solemn and distressing circumstances. They 
are laid on beds of sickness and death; or 
they are awakened, and anxious for their 
souls. Under such circumstances, to whom 
do they apply usually for instruction and con- 
solation? Not to their worldly and sinful 
companions, but to the friends of religion, and 
to those in general who are members of the 
church. And what a refutation is this of the 
scandal which is sometimes thrown upon 
church members! What an open attestation 
to the general goodness of their moral and 
Christian characters! 



94 T-H E CHURCH. 

5. The high claims of the church may be in- 
ferred from the character, not only of its 
members, but of its principal opposers. At the 
head of this opposition are "the gates of helV^ 
— the devil and his angels. Of this we are 
expressly informed by our Saviour. ''On 
this rock will I build my church, and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against i^." Among 
those human agents, whose names have come 
down to us from ancient time, as foremost in 
the ranks of opposition to the church, are 
Pharaoh and his host; Jabin king of Canaan; 
Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite; 
Sanballat, and Tobiah, and Geshem the Ara- 
bian; Antiochus Epiphanes, who set up the 
image of Jupiter in the temple of the Lord, 
and offered swine's flesh upon his altar; Her- 
od, and Nero, and Decius, and Domitian, who 
made themselves drunk with the blood of the 
saints; and Celsus, and Porphyry, and Julian 
the apostate, who sought by sophistry and 
ridicule to undermine and subvert the gospel. 
In modern times, there can be no doubt as 
to those who have stood foremost in opposi- 
tion to the church. They are infidels and 
scoffers, the licentious and profane, men who 
cannot endure the restraints of religion, and 



THE CHURCH. 95 

to whose ungodly lives its truths and precepts 
minister a continual reproof. It is no dis- 
credit to the church to be opposed and vilified 
by such men. So far from this, it is an honor 
to it, and a high honor. Why should the 
father of lies, and those in general who act 
under his influence, be all enlisted against 
the church, if it is not a holy church — an hon- 
orable and important institution? 

6. The church of God is an institution of 
great importance, because it is the constituted 
medium and dispenser of good influences to the 
world. God has made it the condition of his 
bestowing spiritual blessings upon the world, 
that he be inquired of by his people to do this 
for them. And in all that he has done, or is 
now doing, for the salvation of the world, he 
is pleased to work through the instrumentality 
of his professing people. When in ancient 
times, a revelation was to be given, holy men 
were inspired, and made the organs of com- 
municating it. When the gospel was to be 
difl^used among the nations of the earth, apos- 
tles were commissioned to go forth and pub- 
lish it. All that is doing in these latter days 
for the evangelizing of the world, is done 
through the instrumentality of the church. 



96 THE CHURCH. 

God is stirring up his church to prayers and 
alms, to sacrifices and efforts, and is making 
it the medium of conferring his choicest bles- 
sings. To stand in this most interesting re- 
lation between God and the world, and be 
the appointed medium through which the 
blessings of heaven are flowing down upon 
mankind, is certainly a high honor to the 
church. In this view, the institution is pre- 
sented to us, as one beyond all others inter- 
esting and important. 

7. In estimating the character of the church, 
it will be necessary to consider the representa- 
tions of the Bible respecting it. But in pre- 
senting a specimen of these cheering repre- 
sentations, I hardly know where to begin 
or end. Whole chapters might be quoted 
from the Old Testament, in which God exhib- 
its his love for his church, and the assurances 
of its future triumph and peace. ''Glorious 
things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Its 
foundation is the holy mountains. The Lord 
loveth the gates of Zion, more than all the 
dwellings of Jacob." Ps. 87: 1-3. ''Behold 
I have graven thee upon the palms of my 
hands; thy walls are continually before me." 
"Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and 



THE CHURCH. 97 

queens thy nursing mothers; they shall bow 
down to thee, with their face toward the earth, 
and lick up the dust of thy feet." '^I will con- 
tend with them that contend with thee, and I 
will feed them that oppress thee with their 
own flesh, and they shall be drunken with 
their own blood ; and all flesh shall know that 
I the Lord am thy Saviour and Redeemer, the 
mighty One of Jacob." Is. xlix. In the Old 
Testament, God speaks of loving his church 
with an everlasting love, and declares that 
those who touch it, with the intent to injure 
it, touch the apple of his eye. Zech. ii. 

In the New Testament, Christ is said to have 
*' loved his church, and given himself for it, 
that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the 
washing of water by the word, that he might 
present it to himself a glorious churchy not 
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." 
The church is also said to have been pur- 
chased with Christ's own blood. Eph. 5: 25. 
Acts 20: 28. Accordingly, he is represented 
as the head, and the corner-stone of the church ; 
and the church is repeatedly spoken of as his 
building, and his body. An institution sus- 
taining such relations to God and to Christ, 

as those here ascribed to the church, and of 
9 



98 THECHURCH. 

which such honorable mention is every where 
made in the Scriptures, cannot but be one of 
a very important character. 

8. In estimating the character of the church, 
it may be important to consider how it is re- 
garded in heaven. That the church of God 
exists in heaven, and is to exist there for ever, 
there can be no doubt. An important portion 
of the church has been already transplanted 
from this world to that, and in the end all are 
to be carried there. The church militant is 
to be swallowed up in the church triumphant, 
and the entire company of the redeemed is to 
dwell together in the mansions above for ever. 
And how are they to be situated there ? How 
are they to be regarded by the other inhab- 
itants of heaven? We have the fullest infor- 
mation on this subject in the Revelation of 
John. When the heavens were opened to 
this beloved disciple, he saw the representa- 
tives of the redeemed church familiarly ming- 
ling with angelic spirits, and with them sur- 
rounding the throne of God above. He heard 
them uniting in a song which no beings in 
heaven could ever learn, except themselves. 
He saw the city prepared for their eternal 
residence — the New Jerusalem descending 



THE CHURCH. 99 

from God out of heaven — with its walls of 
jasper, and its gates of pearl, and its streets 
of the purest gold. It needed no temple; 
for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb 
were the temple of it. Neither had it need of 
the sun or the moon; for the glory of the 
Lord did lighten it, and the Lamb was the 
light thereof. Rev. xxi. Such is the final resi- 
dence of the redeemed church of Christ, and 
such the honor to be put upon it in heaven 
for ever. And is such an institution to be re- 
proached and persecuted upon the earth? 
Are men, in their madness, to stand aloof 
from it, and affect to despise it? If they will, 
they must; but meanwhile let them remember 
that it is out of their power ultimately to dis- 
credit or injure the church of God. Its Pro- 
tector is strong; its constitution is perfect; its 
foundation is the holy mountains. It is des- 
tined to live — in peace and rest, in honor and 
glory — when its oppressors shall be trodden 
together in the dust, and their very names 
shall have perished. 

With another general remark, this discus- 
sion will be concluded. If the church of 
Christ is, what it has been represented to be 
in the foregoing pages, then it is the duty of 



100 THE CHURCH. 

all who enjoy the gospel to become its mem- 
bers. This is evident from two considera- 
tions: 

1. It is the duty of all, who are favored 
with the gospel, to become at once the true 
friends and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

2. It is the duty of all the real followers of 
Christ to become his visible followers: or 
which is thb same, to become, by a holy pro- 
fession, members of his church. 

Can either of these propositions be dis- 
proved? Can either of them be reasonably 
called in question? 

Many persons, I know, are in the habit of 
framing excuses, and of trusting to them, to 
justify themselves in a neglect of the church. 
Some are too young to make a public profes- 
sion of religion, and some too old. Some 
think themselves not fit for the church, and 
others think the church not fit for them. But 
all such excuses are worthless and sinful. 
Until persons can disprove the divine origin 
of the church, and set aside the high and holy 
claims of the gospel, it will remain the indis- 
pensable duty of every person under the gos- 
pel, who has come to years of understanding 
and reflection, to become a faithful, spiritual 
member of the church of Christ. 



THE CHURCH. 101 

There are those who seem to regard a pub- 
lic profession of religion in the light of a free 
will offering, which is required by no antece- 
dent obligations, and which they are at liber- 
ty to make or neglect, at pleasure. But this 
is altogether an inadequate and erroneous view 
of the subject. A profession of religion is 
required by antecedent and indispensable 
obligations. It is the bounden duty of all who 
are favored with the light of the gospel. And 
little do those think — who are often called to 
the performance of this duty, but who lightly 
and continually neglect it — what a burthen of 
guilt they are contracting and accumulating 
in this way. It is one of the sins of which 
professors of religion have need to repent, 
that they so long slighted the claims of the 
church, and turned their backs on the ordi- 
nances of the gospel. And it is one of the 
sins which those out of the church ought 
deeply to feel, and for which they ought to 
mourn and repent, that they have always 
neglected their duty in this respect — that they 
have never yet performed it, in a single 
instance. 

We urge no one to make a hypocritical pro- 
fession of godliness. But we do sincerely 
9^ 



102 THE CHURCH. 

urge all, who have the means of becoming 
acquainted with the religion of Christ, to pos- 
sess this religion, and then to profess it — to 
become at once (as they ought) the real friends 
and followers of Christ, and then to join 
themselves to the number of his umft/e friends 
and people. 



APPENDIX. 



NOTE A. 

That there was a class of females in the primitive 
churches, usually denominated deaconesses^ admits 
not of a doubt. They were not the wives of the 
deacons, but were generally selected from among 
the widows, and such widows as were considerably 
advanced in life. See 1 Tim. 5 : 9, 10, The apos- 
tolic constitutions say, " the deaconess must either 
be a chaste virgin, or a widow that hath been the 
wife of one man." 

The deaconesses were set apart to their office by 
the imposition of hands ; " yet, this mode of conse- 
cration," says Bingham, " gave them no sacerdotal 
power. Women were expressly forbidden to ex- 
ercise the sacred functions of the clergy ; and it 
was made one of the charges against certain classes 
of heretics and schismatics, that they allowed 
women to preach, and perform other functions of 



104 APPENDIX. 

the ministry. Thus Epiphanius says, "There is, 
indeed, an order of deaconesses in the church, but 
their business is not to administer the sacraments, 
or to perform any part of the sacerdotal office, but 
only to he a decent help to the female sex at the time of 
their baptism^ sickness, affliction, or the like,^^ They 
assisted in preparing their own sex for baptism, so 
that the ceremony might be decently performed. 
They were also employed in visiting females who 
were sick, or in distress, especially in cases where 
the deacons could not so well go, on account of 
scandal. In times of persecution, the deaconesses 
were accustomed to minister to the confessors and 
martyrs in prison, because they could do it with less 
suspicion and danger than men. They also as- 
signed to the women their places in church, and 
observed and regulated their behaviour. 

How long this order continued in the church is 
not certainly known. It was not laid aside all at 
once. There were decrees against it in the western 
church in the fifth century, but it was not until the 
tenth or eleventh century that all traces of it be- 
came extinct." See Bingham's Orig. Ecc, Book ii, 
Chap. 22, 



APPENDIX. 105 



NOTE B. 



It has been held by some, in both ancient and 
modern times, that the creed commonly called the 
Apostle's was composed by them. This opinion is 
however without foundation, inasmuch as the writ- 
ers of the first three centuries intimate no such 
thing, and the testimony of subsequent writers 
only goes to prove that creeds in general were of 
apostolical institution, and that this creed is apos- 
tolical, in regard to substance of doctrine. 

It is certain that the early Christians used creeds, 
in substance the same, though not agreeing pre- 
cisely in form. It may be interesting to bring to- 
gether several of the ancient creeds, preserved in 
different writers, illustrating the substantial unity 
of the ancient church, in point of doctrine. 



CREED OF IREN^US. 

" The church, though it be dispersed over all the 
world from one end of the earth to the other, re- 
ceived from the apostles and their disciples, the 
belief in one God the Father, Almighty, maker of 
heaven, and earth, and sea, and all things in them : 

* The greater part of the following Note is from Bingham's Orig. 
Ecc, Book iii, Chap. 2. 



106 APPENDIX. 

and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was 
incarnate for our salvation : and in the Holy Ghost, 
who preached by the prophets the dispensations of 
God : and the advent, and nativity of a virgin, and 
passion, resurrection from the dead, and bodily as- 
cension of the flesh of his beloved Son, Christ Je- 
sus, our Lord, into heaven ; and his coming again 
from heaven in the glory of the Father, to consum- 
mate all things, and raise the flesh of all mankind: 
that according to the will of the invisible Father, 
every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
things in the earth, and things under the earth, to 
Jesus Christ, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and 
King ; and that every tongue should confess him ; 
and that He shall exercise just judgment upon all, 
and send spiritual wickedness, the transgressing 
and a})ostate angels, with all ungodly, unrighteous, 
and blaspheming men, into everlasting fire ; but 
grant life to all righteous and holy men, that keep 
his commandments and persevere in his love, some 
from the beginning, others after repentance, on 
whom he confers immortality and invests them 
with eternal glory." 



CREED OF ORIGEN. 

" The things which are manifestly handed down 
by apostolical preaching are these: First, That 
there is one God, who created and made all things, 



APPENDIX. 107 

and caused the whole universe to exist out of noth- 
ing ; the God of all the just that ever were from the 
first creation and foundation of all ; the God of 
Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abra- 
ham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses and 
the prophets; and that this God in the last days, as 
he had promised before by his prophets, sent our 
Lord Jesus Christ, first to call Israel and then the 
Gentiles, after the infidelity of his people Israel. 
This just and good God, the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, gave both the Law and the Prophets, 
and the Gospels, being the God of the Apostles, and 
of the Old and New Testament." The next article 
is, " that Jesus Christ, who came into the world, 
was begotten of the Father before every creature, 
who, ministering to his Father in the creation of all 
things (for by him all things were made), in the last 
times made himself of no reputation and became 
man: he who was God, was made flesh, and when 
he was man, he continued the same God that he 
was before. He assumed a body in all things like 
ours, save only that it was born of a virgin by the 
Holy Ghost. And because this Jesus Christ was 
born and suffered death common to all, in truth, 
and not only in appearance, he was truly dead ; for 
he rose again truly from the dead, and after his 
resurrection conversed with his disciples, and was 
taken up into heaven. They also delivered unto 
us, that the Holy Ghost was joined in the same hon- 
or and dignity with the Father and the Son." 



108 APPENDIX. 

CREED OF TERTULLIAN. 

" There is one rule of faith only which admits of 
no change or alteration, that teaches us to believe 
in one God Almighty, the Maker of the world ; and 
in Jesus Christ his Son, who was born of the Vir- 
gin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the third 
day arose again from the dead, and being received 
into heaven, he sitteth now at the right hand of 
God, who shall come again to judge both the quick 
and the dead, by the resurrection of the flesh." 



CREED OF GREGORY THAUMATURGUS. 

" There is one God, the Father of the living 
Word, the subsisting wisdom and power, the eter- 
nal express image of God, who is a perfect beget- 
ter of a perfect, a Father of an only begotten Son. 
And one Lord, one of one, God of God, the char- 
acter and image of the Godhead, the word of pow- 
er, the wisdom that comprehends the whole system 
of the world, the power that made every creature. 
The true Son of the true Father, invisible of invis- 
ible, incorruptible of incorruptible, immortal of 
immortal, eternal of eternal. And one Holy Ghost, 
who has his existence from God, who was mani- 
fested to men by the Son, the perfect image of the 
perfect Son, the living cause of all living, the foun- 
tain of holiness, essential sanctity, who is the au- 



APPEND IX. 



109 



thor of holiness in others : in whom God the Fa- 
ther is manifested, who is above all and in all, and 
God the Son, whose power runs through all things. 
A perfect Trinity, whose glory, eternity and domin- 
ion is no w^ay divided or separated from each other. 
In this Trinity, therefore, there is nothing created 
or servile, nothing adventitious or extraneous, that 
did not exist before, but afterward came into it. 
The Father was never without the Son, nor the 
Son without the Spirit, but the Trinity abides the 
same, unchangeable and invariable for ever." 



CREED OF LUCIAN THE MARTYR. 

"We believe, according to the tradition of the 
Gospels, and Apostles, in one God, the Father Al- 
mighty, Creator, and Maker, and Governor of all 
things, of whom are all things : and in one Lord 
Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, who is God, 
by whom are all things, who was begotten of the 
Father, God of God, Whole of Whole, One of One, 
Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord, the 
Word, the Wisdom, the Life, the true Light, the 
true Way, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate, 
the incommutable and unchangeable image of the 
divine essence, power and glory, the first-born of 
every creature, w^ho was always from the beginning 
God the Word with God, according to what is said 
in the Gospel ; ' and the Word was God,' by whom 
10 



110 APPENDIX. 

all things were made and in whom all things sub- 
sist, who in the last days descended from on high, 
and was born of a virgin according to the Scrip- 
tures, and being the Lamb of God, he was made 
the Mediator between God and men, being fore-or- 
dained to be the author of our faith and life ; for he 
said, ' I came not from heaven to do my own will 
but the will of him that sent me.' Who suffered 
and rose again for us the third day, and ascended 
into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father; and he shall come again with glory to 
judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in 
the Holy Ghost, which is given to believers for 
their consolation, and sanctification, and consumma- 
tion, according to what our Lord Jesus Christ ap- 
pointed his disciples, saying, ' Go, teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Whence the 
properties of the Father are manifest, denoting him 
to be truly a father, and the properties of the Son, 
denoting him to be truly a son, and the properties 
of the Holy Spirit, denoting him to be truly the 
Holy Ghost: these names not being simply put, 
and to no purpose, but to express the particular 
subsistence, or hypostatic substance, as the Greeks 
term it, of each person named, so as to denote 
them to be three in hypostasis, and one by consent." 



APPENDIX. Ill 

CREED OF THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM. 

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visi- 
ble and invisible ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father 
before all ages, the true God, by whom all things 
were made, who was incarnate and made man, who 
was crucified and buried, and the third day he rose 
again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and 
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and shall 
come to judge the quick and dead, of whose king- 
dom there shall be no end: And in the Holy Ghost, 
the Comforter, who spake by the prophets. In one 
baptism of repentance, in the remission of sins, in 
one Catholic Church, in the resurrection of the 
flesh, and in life everlasting." 



CREED OF THE CHURCH AT ALEXANDRIA. 

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 
and in Jesus Christ his Son, our Lord, God the 
Word, begotten of Him before all ages ; by whom 
all things were made, that are in heaven and in 
earth ; who came down from heaven, and was in- 
carnate, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended 
into heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick 
and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, and in the 
resurrection of the flesh, and in the life ©f the world 



112 APPENDIX. 

to come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one 
Catholic Church of God extended from one end of 
the earth to the other." 



CREED OF THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH. 

" I believe in one only true God, the Father Al- 
mighty, Maker of all creatures visible and invisible : 
and in Jesus Christ our Lord, his only begotten 
Son, the first born of every creature, born of Him 
before all ages, and not made, very God of very 
God, consubstantial with the Father: by whom the 
world was framed, and all things made : who for 
our sakes came, and was born of the Virgin Mary, 
and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, 
and the third day rose according to the Scriptures, 
and ascended into heaven, and shall come again to 
judge the quick and the dead." 



CREED OF THE CHURCH AT ROME, CALLED THE 



"I believe in God, the Father, Almighty; and in 
Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, who 
was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, 
and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was 
buried, and the third day rose again from the dead, 
ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of 



APPENDIX. 113 

the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick 
and the dead, x^nd in the Holy Ghost, the Holy 
Church, the remission of sins, and the resurrection 
of the flesh. Amen." 



NOTE C. 

It has been made a question whether the articles 
of a church (its creed and covenant) should require 
any thing more than what is absolutely essential to 
the existence of piety, so that, by no possibility, any 
truly pious person should be, by the articles, exclu- 
ded. In proof of what has been termed the liberal 
view on this subject, it has been urged, that the 
church, with its ordinances and privileges, is an in- 
stitution of Christ, designed for the benefit of all 
his children ; and hence to exclude any of his chil- 
dren, by articles of human construction, from his 
church and his table, is to dishonor Christ, and to 
defeat (to some extent at least) the design of his 
institutions. 

But, in opposition to this view, several things 
worthy of serious consideration may be urged. 

1. It is no easy matter to determine what amount 
of truth in the understanding is absolutely essential 
to piety in the heart,^ and of course, on the ground 

* It may not be difficult to ascertain what doctrines are essential to 
the sijstem of Christian truth, so that, if they were left out of it, the 
system would be essentially impaired. But to ascertain what amount 
of truth in the understanding is absolutely essential to piety in the 
heart, is a very different question, and one much more difficult of so- 
lution. ]0* 



114 APPENDIX. 

here examined, what amount it would be proper 
to retain in our church articles, and what to ex- 
clude from them. Many think that true piety is 
possible, in connexion with some forms of Unitari-» 
anism and Universalism. Others extend their char- 
ity so far as to embrace the better sort of heathens 
and infidels. If the articles of the church must 
be so curtailed that, by no possibility, any pious 
person can be excluded, it is doubtful whether any 
thing would remain ; or if any thing, what and how 
much. But, 

2. Has a church a rip^Jit, in framing its articles, to 
omit any part of what it conceives to be essential 
in the system of Christian doctrine or practice ? 
The Bible is all of it a revelation from God, which 
he has given to his people for their good ; and it is 
incumbent on them to receive it all. And in fram- 
ing, as the basis of church union, an epitome of 
what the Bible is supposed to teach, what right 
have they to omit certain doctrines and duties, 
which they conceive to be of great importance, 
merely out of respect to the opinions of others ? 
Are the opinions of others to be their guide in this 
matter, or their own convictions? And have they 
a right, from a regard to others, to base a church 
on one half or one quarter of what they honestly 
believe to be God's system of revealed truth, and 
omit the rest ? 

3. It may be inquired again, whether the written 
preed of a church should not be in accordance 



APPENDIX. 115 

with its real belief; and in case it is not, whether 
the former can, with any propriety, be denominated 
the creed of the church. Here, for example, is a com- 
pany of Christians who believe that the doctrine of 
election is an essential part of the system of re- 
vealed truth, and that infant baptism is of divine 
institution ; but in framing their articles, they omit 
both these points, under the impression that, if 
retained, they may be the means of excluding some 
real Christians. 1 ask now whether their articles 
are the real creed of the church, or only a maimed 
and imperfect part of it ; and whether, in propos- 
ing it as the creed of the church, they are not just- 
ly chargeable with dishonesty. 

It is of great importance, that those who are ex- 
pecting to unite habitually in the most solemn acts 
of religious worship (as is the case with members 
of the same church) should be agreed in all the es- 
sential points of Christian doctrine and duty. Their 
own peace and edification require this. And the 
honor and interests of religion require the same. 
To secure this important object is the design of 
church articles ; and when these are framed sin- 
cerely and truly, according to the convictions of 
those who adopt them (as they should be certainly, 
if they are framed at all), I conceive that no just 
ground of offence is given, even if a pious person 
shall find them such that he cannot in sincerity ac- 
cede to them. Were there any attempt to impose 
them upon him, or in any way to force his con- 



116 APPENDIX. 

science, he would have reason to complain; but 
when they are merely proposedfor his consideration, 
and he is left perfectly free to receive or reject 
them, it is believed that he has no just cause of 
complaint. He has his rights of conscience, and 
the church have theirs, and if he cannot consistent- 
ly unite with them, he is at liberty to find or form 
some other church with which he can unite. Cer- 
tainly, were an individual to demand more than 
this of a church — were he to require them to re- 
ject from their articles what they conceived to be 
essential in Christian doctrine, they would have 
good reason for complaint. For this would- be re- 
quiring them to sacrifice their own consciences, to 
relieve his. 

The church is, indeed, an institution of Christ, 
and designed for the special benefit of his people, 
his children. But how are his children to partake 
of its benefits ? On certain conditions ; or without 
any conditions ? In a prescribed way ; or in any 
way that shall best suit their inclinations? Are 
they to partake of them in a single organization ; 
or in different and circumstantially varied organi- 
zations, as their own preferences and the provi- 
dence of God shall direct ? 



APPENDIX. 117 



NOTE D. 



" It is certain," says Dr. Increase Mather, " that 
in the next age to the apostles, a pastor was not 
settled in any church without the concurrence of 
others. When the church had elected a pastor, 
they presented him to the neighbor pastors for their 
approbation; nor could he be legally confirmed 
without it. Eusebius tells us, that when Alexan- 
der was chosen pastor of the church at Jerusalem 
by the brethren of that place, he had the common 
consent of the circumjacent pastors. Lib. vi, c. ii. 
And thus, as Cyprian informs us, it was practised 
in all the churches throughout Africa. He speaks 
particularly concerning Sabinus, who was elected 
pastor of Eremita in Spain, how that neighbor min- 
isters concurred in his ordination, after the frater- 
nity had elected him." Order of Churches vindicat- 
ed, p. 79. 

Bingham notices the following as modes of com- 
munion among the different churches in ancient 
times : 

1. They had communion in a common faith. All 
churches which departed from the rule of faith 
were held as heretical. To secure the requisite 
unity in this respect, " every bishop at his ordina- 
tion made a declaration of his faith before the pro- 
vincial synod, and also sent circular letters to other 
churches, to signify that he was in communion 
with the catholic church." 



118 APPENDIX. 

2. "The churches were required to give each 
other mutual assistance in opposing fundamental 
errors, and in preserving the common faith." 

3. A member of any particular church was ex- 
pected, as opportunity presented, to "join in com- 
munion with all other churches, in divine worship 
and holy offices. To this end it was requisite that 
every church should keep itself free from super- 
stitious and idolatrous worship, and from every 
thing not conformable to the analogy of the Chris- 
tian faith; and on the other hand that every Chris- 
tian, when he came to a foreign church, should 
readily comply with all the usages and rules of that 
church in regard to those indifferent matters which 
each bishop and church were left to regulate ac- 
cording to their views of edification and general 
expediency. This was a necessary rule of peace 
and unity : for there would naturally be a greater 
or less diversity of customs and forms in things 
indifferent." 

4. There was a " mutual consent of the churches, 
to ratify all legal acts of discipline exercised by any 
particular church. A person in regular communion 
with one church had a right, when travelling, to 
the privileges of other churches, if he carried with 
him his commendatory letters {Uteres formatcE), to 
signify that he was in peace and communion with 
his church. On the other hand, if a man was ex- 
communicated or suspended in his own church, no 
other church would admit him to communion, till 
he had reconciled himself to his church." 



APPENDIX. 119 

5. The churches were all of them expected to 
submit to what was regarded as the common law of 
the general church, viz., " to that which, by gener- 
al consent, was handed down from apostolical tra- 
dition, and to that which was settled by the deter- 
mination of general councils." See Bingham's Ecc. 
Orig., Book 16, Chap. i. 

NOTE E. 

It is admitted on all sides that, at the time of 
Paul's meeting with the Ephesian elders at Miletus 
(Acts 20: 17—38), Timothy was not bishop of Eph- 
esus, and never had been. But it is insisted by 
bishop Pearson, and by most modern Episcopalians, 
that the first Epistle to Timothy was written as late 
as the year 65, long subsequent to this meeting with 
the elders, and subsequent to the conclusion of the 
history in the Acts. But to this hypothesis there 
appear to me to be insuperable objections. 

1. It is entirely gratuitous. There is no proof of 
it in any part of the New Testament, or in the writ- 
ings of the early Christians. 

2. Timothy is spoken of in Paul's first Epistle to 
him as a youth (Chap. 4 : 12); which would scarcely 
be true of him as late as the year 65. 

3. Timothy was left at Ephesus, as appears from 
the directions in this first Epistle, to complete the 
organization of the church, by constituting bishops 
and deacons. (Chap. 3.) But it is inconceivable 
that this church should have remained without 



120 



APPENDIX 



church officers till the year 65, as many as eight or 
ten years after its planting. Indeed, it is certain, 
from the meeting at Miletus, that they were not 
without officers. 

4. According to Lardner (who, in opposition to 
my previous convictions, has satisfied me of the 
truth of his hypothesis), the second Epistle to Tim- 
othy was written as early as the year 61, near the 
commencement of Paul's first imprisonment at 
Rome ; and certainly the first Epistle must have 
been written several years earlier. 

The following seems to be the true chronology 
of the first Epistle to Timothy, and the connexion 
in which it stands in the history of Paul. When 
this apostle had labored more than two years at 
Ephesus (Acts 19: 10), he formed the design of 
leaving, to go through Macedonia and Achaia 
to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Rome (ver. 20). 
With this object in view, he sends into Macedonia 
Timothy and Erastus, while he " stays at Ephesus 
for a season" (ver. 22). After their departure, he 
writes his first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which 
he speaks of himself as at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16: 8), 
and of Timothy as in Greece (1 Cor. 4: 17. 16 : 10, 
11). Tarrying longer than he intended at Ephesus, 
Timothy returns to the apostle there (1 Cor. 16: 11). 
On account of the disturbance at Ephesus, Paul 
leaves suddenly for Macedonia, and entreats Tim- 
othy to remain for a time (Acts 20: 1. I Tim. 1 : 3). 
From Macedonia, Paul writes the first Epistle to 
Timothy in the latter part of the year 56. At the 



APPENDIX. 121 

time of writing it, Paul hopes to come to Ephesus, 
on his way to Jerusalem (I Tim. 3. 13, 14), but is 
detained in Greece longer than he expected, and 
Timothy comes to him. From Macedonia Paul 
writes his second Epistle to the Corinthians, in 
which Timothy unites with him (2 Cor. 1:1, and 
9: 1 — 5). They visit Corinth, and remain several 
months, and then return through Macedonia to Tro- 
as, and afterwards to Miletus, where they meet the 
Ephesian elders. (See Acts 20.) It hence follows 
that the first Epistle to Timothy was written a very 
considerable time previous to this meeting. 

NOTE F. 

Great stress is laid by certain Episcopal writers 
on their alleged apostolical succession. The the- 
ory is, that the apostles ordained bishops to be suc- 
cessors to themselves : who, in their turn, ordained 
others to be successors to themselves ; and these 
again ordained others ; and so there has been an 
uninterrupted succession of Episcopal ordinations 
from the apostles' time to the present, — in the line 
of which succession, there has been a valid minis- 
try and sacraments, which are represented as of 
great and saving efficacy, but out of which there is 
no valid ministry or sacraments, if indeed there is 
a possibility of salvation. 

In reference to this theory, I must be permitted 
to offer a few remarks. And 

1. T ^oiilJ inquire as to the nature of that mys- 
u 



122 APPENDIX. 

terious, nameless something, which is supposed to 
have been imparted by the apostles to their succes- 
sors, and by them to theirs, and so on through a 
period of near two thousand years, which gives to 
the sacraments so potent an efficacy, when admin- 
istered by those who are in the succession, and 
leaves them so inefficacious and valueless, when 
administered by others. What is it? Is it any 
thing ? And is the theory which involves so strange 
a supposition any better than a dream? 

2. If the theory under consideration is founded 
in truth, then the fact of the alleged apostolical 
succession ought to be one of the most obvious cer- 
tainty. It ought to be clear, in all its parts, and to 
be susceptible of the fullest and most satisfactory 
proof Certainly, if in order to be a minister, and 
qualified as such to administer the Christian sacra- 
ments, a man must be in the succession, he ought to 
know when he assumes the ministerial office, that 
he is in the succession. There should be no room 
for doubt on the subject. A suspicion here must 
be fatal to his peace. And not only so, a people 
should be able to assure themselves, when they re- 
ceive a minister, that he is in the succession. As 
the validity of his official acts depends altogether 
upon this fact, there should be no room for doubt or 
hesitation in regard to it. Certainly, if the theory 
under consideration is true, the fact of an uninter- 
rupted apostolical succession ought to be one of the 
clearest and most obvious certainty. But this leads 
me to remark, 



APPENDIX. 123 

3. That this assumed fact is not clear. It is not 
susceptible of satisfactory proof In regard to any 
bishops now living, or who are likely to live, it can- 
not be rendered so much as probable. 

I shall not take it upon me to disprove the fact of 
an i uninterrupted apostolical succession, — this is 
not incumbent on those who reject the theory ; — but 
merely to state some difficulties in the way of those 
who may attempt to establish this fact, with refer- 
ence particularly to the bishops of the church of 
England. 

These bishops commonly trace their succession, 
through the church of Rome, to the apostle Peter. 
But who can prove that the apostle Peter was ever 
bishop of Rome ? And who can prove that the 
first ministers of this church were any thing more 
than presbyters? Irenaeus expressly calls them 
presbyters, and it is very certain that they were 
presbyters. — Again, who can tell who these first 
ministers were, and in what order they succeeded 
each other? The modern church of Rome is con- 
founded here, and has no means of determining the 
point, except on the ground of her own infallible 
decisions. " Contested elections at Rome, and in 
almost all considerable cities, make it very dubious 
which were the true bishops ; and decrees of coun- 
cils rendering all those ordinations null, where any 
simoniacal contract was the foundation of them, 
makes it impossible to prove, at least on the princi- 
pies of the Romish church, that there is now upon 



124 



APPENDIX 



earth any one person who is a legal successor of 
the apostles." 

But here is not the whole difficulty of the case. 
Is it certain that the church of Rome, down to the 
time of the Reformation, sustained the character of 
a true church of Christ, and that her bishops are 
to be regarded as true ministers of Christ ? Or is 
it not rather certain that, ages previous to the Ref- 
ormation, this idolatrous and persecuting church 
had proved herself to " the whore of Babylon " — 
the great Antichrist of the New Testament? Such 
at least, was the opinion of the early reformers and 
fathers of the English church, and on this ground 
they justified their separation from Rome. 

In regard to this question, the following positions 
seem to me safe and indubitable : " Either the 
church of Rome is a false and heretical church, or 
she is not. If she be, it follows that she has no 
lawful ministry, nor a power to transmit any. If 
she be not false and heretical, or in other words, if 
she be a true church ; then the churches which 
separated from her are schismatical and heretical, 
and of course are incapable of having any lawful 
ministry. The advocates of an uninterrupted suc- 
cession through the church of Rome are hemmed 
in betwixt the two horns of this dilemma, one of 
which must give them a mortal wound, let them 
turn themselves which way they please." 

But even here is not the whole difficulty attend- 
ing the theory of an uninterrupted succession. Al- 
lowing that the church of Rome is capable of trans- 



APPENDIX. 125 

mitting the succession, with all the mystical virtues 
supposed to be attached to it, can the English bish- 
ops prove incontestably that they are in the succes- 
sion of the Romish church ? It has been strenu- 
ously insisted, that' this cannot be proved. It has 
been said that, "in the year 668, the successors of 
Austin the monk being almost entirely extinct, by 
far the greatest part of the bishops were of Scottish 
ordination by Aidan and Finnan, who came out of 
the Culdee monastery of Columbanus, and were no 
more than preshytersP 

On the whole, I agree with Dr. Doddridge, who 
says, "It is a very precarious and uncomfortable 
foundation for Christian hope, which is laid in the 
doctrine of an uninterrupted succession of bishops, 
and which makes the validity of the administration 
of Christian ministers depend upon such a succes- 
sion ;"^ and with bishop Hoadley, who says, "I am 
fully satisfied that until a consummate stupidity can 
be happily established, and universally spread over 
the land, there is nothing that tends so much to 
destroy all due respect to the clergy, as the demand 
of more than can be due to them; and nothing has 
so effectually thrown contempt upon a regular suc- 
cession of the ministry, as the calling no succession 
regular but what was uninterrupted ; and the mak- 
ing the eternal salvation of Christians to depend 
upon that uninterrupted succession, of which the 
most learned have the least assurance, and tlie unlearned 
can have no notion, hut through ignorance and credu- 
lity,''^ 

* Lect. 117, Sec. 6. 



126 APPENDIX 



NOTE O 



Without going into a consideration of the exter- 
nal evidence for a.ud against the epistles of Ignatius 
(though the preponderance of this is clearly against 
them), the internal evidence is of itself sufficient to 
shake, if not utterly destroy, their credit. The style, 
the spirit, the sentiments, do not agree to the al- 
leged circumstances of the writer, or to the age in 
which he lived. They are like nothing which has 
come down to us from the first century of the 
Christian era, or the early part of the second, but 
much like what might be expected of a pious forger 
of the third or fourth century. The burden of the 
writer's exhortations to the churches is. Obey your 
bishop, obey your bishop ; as though this were of all 
duties the first and greatest, the most binding and 
most important. " Do ye all follow your bishop, as 
Jesus Christ did the Father ; and the presbytery, as 
the apostles ; and reverence the deacons, as the 
command of God." Epis. to the Smyrneans, Sect. 8. 

After an impartial view of the whole case, I ac- 
cord with the sentiment of Prof Norton, as ex- 
pressed in his very learned work on " the Genuine- 
ness of the Gospels." " I doubt," says he, " wheth- 
er any book, in its general tone of sentiment and 
language, ever betrayed itself as a forgery more 
clearly, than do these pretended epistles of Igna- 
tius," JVo^e5, p. 284. 




ii 



'm^-- 



'• ' * %4 



•* ■ V 



m 




TEMPERANCE TALES. 



my 



ji 

Price, 6 cts. \ i 



No. l. — MY MOTHER'S GOLD RING. 

single. 

No. 2. — WILD DICK. — Price, 6 cts. single. \ i 

No. 3.— I AM AFRAID THERE IS A GOD. — Price, | ^ 

6 cts. single. \ y 

No. 4. — A SECTARIAN THING. — Price, 6 cts. single. | 7 

No. 5. — GROGGY HARBOR. — Price, 8 cts. single. \ \ 



No. 6. —RIGHT OPPOSITE. — Price, 8 cts. single. 
No. 7. — FRITZ HAZELL. —Price, 12J cts. single. 

No. 8. — JOHNNY HODGES. — Price, 6 cts. single. | i 

No. 9. — A WORD IN SEASON, OR THE SAILOR'S ) 

WIDOW. — Price, 6 cts. single. (^ 

No. 10.— SEED TIME AND HARVEST. — Price, 6 |r 

cts. single. I V 

No. 11. — AN IRISH HEART. — Price, 20 cts. single. ^ 

No, 12.— WELL ENOUGH FOR THE VULGAR.— |(| 

Price; 124 cts. single. | J 




No. 13. — NANCY LE BARON. — Price, 12J cts. single. ;| ( 

Vols. I., n.y Ss' lll.y bound in cloth — PncCj 50 cents a volume. \ /| 

^===^====^ \l 

(O' Orders for any number of copies will receive immediate | V! 

attention. Address Whipple & Damrell, 9 CornhiU, *^ 

Boston. 

— m] 



B^^R^^^I^^i^^^ 




^1 



■ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



{iL 



n 



1 



^ 



CONGRESS 







